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.

Department of Education,

It is my understanding that the goal of the department of education is to advance and improve the overall achievement of all New Brunswick children. I have read and listened to many of the discussions over the last several months and I am hearing a very mixed message. If the goal is to improve all children's achievement, why is there a push to eliminate the challenges and options of those to chose to further their education. Are these students to to be blended into the "average or uniform" system to eliminate the appearance of "streaming or segregation"? We already have a province of two "segregated" school systems, yet no discussions have raised concerns of this.

The need for additional specialized resources for those that do not learn by the same methods as those that the uniform system is tailored for cannot be ignored. As a society we need to maximize the learning opportunities and choices so that each individual can reach their maximum. On a high level these options will appear to cost more, but is blending everyone and only getting a 50% success rate actually saving any in education costs. The requirement to train will just get pushed out to industry and private enterprise to make up the difference.

My job position in the construction industry in this province brings me directly in contact with multiple levels of education and language. It proves that when people are trained in the manner that suits their learning style, whether text book engineers or hands on trades people, they can all reach very high levels of achievement and leadership. Also, the benefits of bilingualism can be felt on the bottom line success of projects. In New Brunswick we are anticipating major shortages of skilled labour and supervision to meet the need of major industrial projects. Would it be unfortunate if we do have the people but they can not communicate with each other?

It is my opinion that we must maintain the programs now in place as they are successful in producing functional bilingual people. Now is not the time to take a leap of fate to abandon what is working, only to find in 15 years that intensive french does or does not work. We need to keep the options open and continue to assess needs of students and give them options.

Regards,

Mr. Lamrock,
I would like you to keep EFI and to start it in kindergarten. The core French program should also start in kindergarten. I would like for there to be more supports for kids that struggle in EFI. I am in EFI and I love it.
I hope you will take the time needed and get all the experts together and come up with a really great plan for next year. My brother is supposed to start EFI this fall and I hope he is allowed to. If not he is going to the French school and he has missed the Francisation program. That does not seem fair to him and other kids like him.
Thank you,

Before the question, How do we best organize French Second Language programming can be answered in a real and effective manner, we need to answer the questions, What are the actual goals of N.B. public education? and, What percentage of our provincial budget are we willing to devote to education?.

If one were to survey the top employees of the Department of Education and the various District Superintendents and ask the question, What is the main goal of our education system, I dare say you would receive as many different answers as people questioned. Until we can agree on our goals and priorities, then questions such as the one currently in the media's eye cannot be answered effectively. It is like being on a cruise ship and desperately trying to figure out how to arrange the deck chairs but no one can agree as to where the ship is heading.

To attempt to answer this question it is imperative to consider fiscal restraints. If we were to return to EFI with a grade 1 entry point, is the Dept of Ed. willing to spend the money needed to fix the problems created on the non-immersion side of the house? If not, then the question would be answered differently than if it were.

Our education system operates on a be all things to all people model. We want our graduates to be ready to go to work, to be prepared for university, to be peer-helpers, to be aware of the signs of abuse and eating disorders, to have good self-esteem, to be good citizens, to be bilingual, to employ thinking strategies, to be inquisitive, to be problem solvers, to be good stewards of the environment, etc., etc., etc. We don't want our students to be obese, nor be victims of bullying, nor experience unwanted pregnancies, nor drink and drive, nor tempted by drugs etc., etc., etc. It seems we also want our students to be thespians, athletes, debaters, public speakers, world travelers, fund raisers for dozens of charities, and picture drawers for a myriad of community calendars. Oh yeah, we also want them to be able to read, write and do arithmetic.

Would someone please figure out what it is we reasonably want from our education system before we answer any more questions as to how we want it organized? We need effective leadership. That's the bottom line.

I strongly oppose the elimination of EFI and feel Dr Dicks has made a great proposal which should be considered.

Regardless of the the decision, please take into consdieration that younger siblings should be zoned for the same school as elder siblings to prevent additional family issues and easier adaption for the younger siblings to the school system.

Take you,

Late immersion was never designed to replace early immersion! Nor do the developers of late immersion feel that late immersion is an acceptable substitute for a province that already has an established early immersion program.

Unless I am mistaken this is an officially bilingual province. A province that enforces its bilingualism policy through legislation. Yes thats right official bilingualism is the law!

Supporting early immersion in this context is not elitism, it is essential. Unilingual children will be at a disadvantage if they wish to stay in this province and work in any profession deemed an essential service.

As New Brunswickers, we can either be proud of our unique status as Canada's only official bilingual province and support our citizens with the best immersion program possible or perhaps it is time to do away with official bilingualism. If it is illegal to not provide service in French than it must be down right criminal for our government to eliminate our childrern's best chance at meeting the minimum requirements of the Official Languages Act.

I wish to applaud our current government's willingness to examine a system that has been in need of drastic change for many years. This is not a new discussion, just one which comes with many strong opinions. I have intentionally waited to express my opinion regarding changes to the EFI program in New Brunswick.

During this time, I have listened to many parents and educators express their opinions, most of which have been based on their own personal experiences or those of their children. Few have looked at the system, as a whole. I have taught in the greater Moncton area for eighteen years. Most recently, I have been in an administrative position which has afforded me the opportunity to examine data from both the English and FI systems. The two systems certainly appear unbalanced in terms of success. Our English system seems to be failing; while the FI system excels.

Why is it that we are not graduating individuals who are completely bilingual and capable in both languages once they are in the workforce? I believe our data does not accurately reflect our systems.

We have created a system where parents feel pressured to enroll their children in EFI based on social reasons, not academic. Many children are entering the system do not succeed and return to an English classroom because they do not have strategies to cope with a total immersion program. They then return to an English classroom and face challenges as they have missed fundamental skills. This is unfortunate, but tragically many other children stay in the FI program longer, only to make the same decision and return to an English classroom at a later date, compounding the problem of having to learn basic skills that have been missed along their journey.

It is my strong belief that all children should be afforded the opportunity to learn to read and write based on the strong foundation of oral language in their primary language. They should then be offered the opportunity to transfer these skills to a second or third language.

I would suggest that a strong Core French program be introduced to all children in Grades Kindergarten through Four. At this point, children will have a foundation in this secondary language and be able to add the more complex skills of reading and writing to their repertoire.

Thank you for examining this issue carefully. The early years in a child's education are critical. We must offer the best program to all children early on. This is not the time to try an option and change if it does not fit.

I do not understand why we just went through this process. Mr Lamrock already knows how the public feels. If numerous public protests, 2 individual Ombudsman reports, a legal decision, being denounced by most experts and supported by none...... what does it take to get the message across. Why are we asking the public to come up with answers that they have no business offering...... The minister should be relying on the 40 plus years of reaserch that has been compiled by real experts and discussing this with them. None of which supports Mr. Lamrocks plans.

I realize Minister Lamrock is looking for suggestions to realistically achieve such admirable goals as improving French Proficiency and overall achievement in literacy, math and science; to increase physical education, art, music and enrichment; and to address streaming in a model that works for all children and is fiscally responsible over the long term. I have strong concerns related his rationale and the information he provided in support of his plan.

Process:
First and foremost is my shared concern over the process Minister Lamrock chose to take for such an immensely important and far reaching plan of action. There are many obvious flaws already detailed from the timing, to the surveys only being submitted to the Anglophone Teacher's Association, to the fact that he worded it as "improvements" to the EFI program, NOT "elimination". Now, Minister Lamrock seems to be ignoring the GNB Ombudsman's unbiased recommendations, and politically skirting around the June 08 Court of Queen's Bench Decision that "The Minister's decision to phase-out Early French Immersion is removed into the Court and quashed. Any further decision by the Minister should not be influenced by any expectations, consequences or possible waste caused by the March decision that has been quashed.", as well as the Honourable H MacLellan's recommendations that "any further decision should be made in accordance with the principles of fairness after an appropriate opportunity for interested citizens and organized groups to be heard to satisfy the Minister's representation that there would be time to allow for a full debate".

Legally what does "Quashed" mean? Nullify, cancel, repeal, overturn, annul, invalidate, make void, suppress, defeat, reverse. What's not to understand? How is Lamrock "complying fully" with the Judge's order? How are Open Houses where our School District Superintendent referred us to write our concerns on a form to mail in or to put our comments on this GNB website considered a "Full Debate"? Webster's Dictionary defines "Full" as "containing as much or as many as is possible or normal; complete especially in detail, number, or duration"; and "Debate" as : "a contention by words or arguments; the formal discussion of a motion before a deliberative body according to the rules of parliamentary procedure; a regulated discussion of a proposition between two matched sides". This "Public Consultation" where the School District Superintendent provided literature, acknowledged our concerns and directed us to the forms to mail in or to the website is not, in my opinion, a full debate. Why rush this, when previous reports warn against fast and one-size-fits-all plans?

Minister Lamrock has a history of unfair and unreasonable behaviour from a pre-political legal case in 1992, dealing with his role in the university. This is a personality trait demonstrated over 16 years, not a minor indiscretion. How can Premier Graham keep such an unfair and unreasonable person in such an important role, affecting the futures of every New Brunswick Child?

Accountability:
Who is going to be held accountable for the time and resources wasted during the Croll-Lee Commission, with a cost reported to be $180,000 of NB tax payers' funding, which is indisputably full of fundamental mathematical and statistical errors. Please take the time to review the "Response to the Review of FSL Programs and Services in NB" by Hamilton & Litvak, March 2008 where every negative point raised by Croll-Lee, supported by Minister Lamrock is refuted, with corrected math and sound logic. This review actually explains that the negatives sited by Croll-Lee are in actuality, not negatives. Using the Croll-Lee data, Hamilton & Litvak's correct math/statistics demonstrate:
1. There is no downward Proficiency Trend in NB students.
2. There is absolutely no difference in attrition rates between EFI and LFI. The method Croll-Lee used was a gross misrepresentation of the data - claiming there is a huge difference when in fact there is none. Clearly one of the main reasons cited to dismantle EFI in favour of LFI is based on incorrect and inaccurate analysis.
3. Croll-Lee used oral proficiency assessment results to establish the number of students succeeding in the program, although this test is optional and not all students choose to take it. Also they assumed that none of the students who may drop out in grade 10 or 11 to prepare for English university have achieved the expected proficiency levels. This is not justified and produces a downward bias in results. The report chooses voluntary achievement of a certificate instead of actual learning as the sole measure of program success.
4. Using the Croll-Lee data to correctly calculate how many students achieved the various levels of proficiency in both the EFI and LFI programs, even though fewer students were tested in EFI than in LFI, more EFI students attained intermediate plus and advanced proficiency standards.
5. There was no significant difference between the current program and the all LFI approach up to intermediate proficiency. However, the number of children attaining intermediate plus and advanced levels of proficiency would drop significantly under the LFI only scheme.
6. Elimination of EFI would only reduce the number of exceptional students in core classroom from a province-wide average of 5.4 to 4.25 students. Not the massive reduction/ 'elimination' that was implied in the Croll-Lee report. On many standardized tests, core students are doing as well or nearly as well as EFI students. This suggests that streaming may not be as big a problem as it is purported to be.
7. Based on stated percentages of students in each program and percentage of funds allocated to each program, EFI is 30% less expensive per student than LFI. EFI is the better financial choice if the goal is to produce French-speaking graduates.
How did Minister Lamrock choose these commissionaires? What were the hiring criteria? What are Croll and Lee's qualifications for being involved in such a transformational event for the education system of the entire province? With the reported personal connections to Minister Lamrock's family and a known opponent to French Second Language Training, wouldn't this be considered a conflict of interest?
How can Minister Lamrock proceed with recommendation exactly matching those from this fundamentally flawed Croll-Lee report, when NO OTHER commissioned study makes any such recommendation? Why would the numerous previous reports on the education system and FSL program, funded by NB tax dollars, authored by qualified, unbiased experts go completely ignored by Lamrock and the Premier?

I am not opposed to change. I am a sensible person trying to raise two young children. It wouldn't be so bad, if the Croll-Lee contents were correct mathematically and statistically and properly correlated. Besides the issue of elimination of EFI, there is also an issue of a GNB Minister making such significant decisions, based on basic errors and incorrect information. The correct math and interpretation show a negative effect on the goal of French language proficiency, at a higher cost than the current system, which we all agree needs "improvement", not elimination.

Can Minister Lamrock produce any evidence, with correct content, to back his claims of improved proficiency, elimination of streaming, cost savings? Lamrock reportedly admitting in NB Legislature that he is taking a risk because, in fact, the pilot group of the new program has not completed grade 12 to date, and has had some core exposure to French in the early years, yet he continues to make statements about the graduated students' proficiency. You must also consider the false assumptions made by Croll-Lee that just because the higher grade students left the immersion program, presumably to prepare for university with courses not offered in French, does not mean they were not proficient in French. You also need to consider that the proficiency testing is VOLUNTARY.

With the correlation made about Streaming being caused by EFI, I do not understand how delaying the problem to a later grade is "Eliminating" the problem. I also fear the Minister's goal of making everybody equal, by holding back some children who excel. It is not acceptable that this government finds it honourable to have such a goal. You are just reversing the disadvantage. We have to accept the fact that student ability is and always will be diverse. Why not set up an education system that supports each individual child to fulfill their own best potential.

I also take issue to the Premier's "Blind Eye" support of Lamrock: 'Does the tail wag the dog?' Who is driving this initiative: Graham or Lamrock? With the corrected data analysis of Lamrock's plan demonstrating such strong negative effects on French Language proficiency, and academics generally, what is their underlying goal? This Lamrock Plan will decrease our future graduate French Proficiency, creating a gap in the work force where employers are required to hire a set level of proficiency, thus requiring changes to this employment criterion; perhaps leading to changing NB to an Anglophone Province. This would save tax payers exorbitant funds, eliminating the need to translation and duplicate literature and documents... What is the real goal here? I value New Brunswick as Canada's bilingual province.

Lamrock's initiatives at improving our provincial math scores by decreasing the required outcomes by 50% will result in our children only learning half the content of past curriculum. This may improve the provincial stats by lowering the bar for all, but does not improve the education of our children. How will we compare on a national and international level? How does this lowering of education standards prepare our NB children for the international competitive job market?

Lamrock's so called improvements to physical education and activity to 'improve' obesity rates in our children, when implemented, will in fact eliminate outdoor recess and decrease time for physical activity. How can Lamrock report correlations to unrelated factors: i.e. how does keeping EFI cause obesity in our teenagers?

All of this has really affected my faith in the state of democracy in New Brunswick? I know Lamrock and Graham were elected, but where is the accountability in government? When electing someone, NB voters anticipate a democratic and just government. It's not about them personally. It's about the betterment of our province as a whole. How can NB government be held accountable after election, if anyone in a government job is intimated into silence for fear of losing their jobs, including Teachers as well as other GNB employees in all Departments? With such fears, being stoked by managers, unions, and colleagues how can this process really be fair and complete when the majority of affected citizens are threatened into silence? How can Lamrock ignore the GNB Ombudsman? What is the role of the ombudsperson, if Government can just ignore them without accountability or recourse?

If the status quo is, in Lamrock's opinion, so detrimental to developing a firm base in their mother tongue and in other skills as math and literacy, then how can he justify keeping my son, going into grade three EFI, in such a program as defunct as he claims? In truth, the correct numbers do not support Lamrock's proposal. In fact, it's Lamrock's plan that will pose a detriment to the educational outcomes of my children.

Instead of making this a political stance, why not allow time for the educational and language experts to get directly involved, considering the numerous previous commissioned studies, which are accurate and fundamentally correct to develop a sound plan that supports each individual child in their academic endeavours?

Please accept the following statements as my complete support for Minister Lamrock and the elimination of early French immersion. I have many reasons to support this recent proposal and I will attempt to briefly summarize the main points.

First, my perspective is from both a parent's as well as an educator/school administrator's point of view. As a parent, I have: 1 child who is entering grade 11 and has followed the late immersion program, 1 child who is entering grade 8 and has followed the early immersion program, 1 child who will be entering the school system next year in the hopes that we will not again be faced with the choice of early immersion or regular program-a choice complicated by the class composition issues along with the program inadequacy issues. That, along with the ever looming question of the detriments created by a streamed program that counters the community benefits of full social integration and inclusion.

As well, I am currently a principal of a large urban K-8 school that has early immersion. I have worked in early, late, and non-immersion schools. I have been a core French teacher as my first degree was in French and Language Arts. I have been in education for 18 years, working in 2 NB school districts as well as the first nations system. I have been a classroom teacher of grades 1-8, a FSL teacher, a VP, and a principal. I have worked as a colleague and as supervisor of the FI/FSL program.

My main points will not address the issue of adequate second language instruction, but rather the more poignant point of EQUITY.

Public education could be arguably considered the most important institutional agent of community change. Its programming, structures, and policies have overt and considerable covert effects on the success of individuals and community.
Because of the question of social equity, the system must strive to be universal in scope-policies, procedures, programming. Any program that intentionally and actively promotes exclusive opportunities runs counter to the goal of the promotion of universal rights and access to opportunity.
An exclusive immersion program that is governed by adult "choice" also defies this premise of universality. (My experience as both parent and educator has largely demonstrated this point-that those members of community who have "voice" and understand opportunity will subscribe to such programs, and the marginalized public do not. I believe this is because marginalized populations are A) unaware of options or B) unaware that their children may qualify or succeed at these options or C) actively or passively discouraged from these options.)
The long term goal of full societal inclusion involves the active building of social capital within the context of schools and universal programming and opportunity promotes this. If we, as a society, would rather continue the division of community based on a classist system, then we would actively continue our support of exclusive opportunities for select community participants.
The question of academic achievement must be considered. Collectively, immersion and non-immersion students have under performed and are alarmingly disengaged in the NB system. A universal system which takes advantage of the proven benefits of mixed ability programs and structures (multi-age teaching, hetereogeneous groupings) would support system wide performance achievement vs pockets of select students. Mixed ability grouping (expert/novice learning philosophy) is an effective method of instruction. Streamed and exclusive programs in public schools undermine this.
A consideration of appropriate development programming should be taken in to account. The matter of choice at elementary level is qualitatively different that programming of choice at middle or at high school. At elementary, it is the choice of parents. At middle, the line shifts to involve both parent and student. At high school, students are transitioning even more so to be autonomous in their programming decisions. This is a strong argument to completely avoid exclusive programs at elementary, consider carefully the choices at middle, and introduce the concept of streamed choices at high school level.

I do not consider myself any type of authority to speak to the issue of adequate second language instruction. My novice opinion would be to suggest:

that no early immersion program be considered, unless universal and that it would introduce a heavier component of English language instruction.
That the implementation of the intensive French program is a positive idea, as long as it remains universal and inclusive. There is little argument that would support the rationale to exclude exceptional students from this program, considering that we would never entertain the exclusion of these students from other core curriculum-math for example, and is active second language instruction any more sophisticated than the conceptual teachings of math?
That the late immersion program be considered to be universal in scope as well. I have concerns that we may have a large achievement gap between the late immersion students and the remaining English ones. The question of human rights must be challenged re the allegation that children must not be forced to take a second language.

In conclusion, I would suggest that the predominant voices in this current public debate would represent those community members who have "voice, influence, power". They are vocal and they are heard. I would tend to believe that they are few.

If I could write a submission for those who have no voice, I would be resubmitting this document many more times, in their interest. If I could write for the parents of non-immersion children, for the parents who are uninformed of the equity and programming issues, for the parents whose children are in over-burdened and under-supported streamed non-immersion classes, for my colleagues who work in non-immersion schools or in largely non-immersion jurisdictions where the programming and class composition issues do not hit them in the face on a daily basis, or for my colleagues who feel that such statements against immersion may be mistaken and misrepresented as prejudice in nature-then I would be forwarding thousands of submissions.

I do not believe necessarily that the decision of the current government to eliminate early FI is the definitive all comprehensive answer to the question of equity in our system. I do believe though, that it is genuinely a positive first step in addressing the issue of equity and attempting to create a universally accessible system that will further support the achievement of all students in New Brunswick. If one of us hasn't made it, none of us have made it.

Respectfully submitted,

Thank you for the opportunity to provide input regarding the proposed elimination of the Early French Immersion program in the New Brunswick school system. I would recommend that you table any decisions for this year and continue your consultation. Most consultation experts would agree that the summer months are not favorable for eliciting the opinions of the general public, particularly those most impacted by your proposal. My understanding of what is being considered by your department is elimination of the EFI program and integrating the children into a core French program in grade one, as the current English system (core French) is not overly successful when standardized test scores are viewed to gauge literacy and numeracy. The children currently enrolled in the Early Immersion program typically do well academically due to the resources available to them and the smaller class sizes. This being said, if a child experiences difficulty, or is unable to cope in the program, they are typically transferred to the core program. I know this as two of my children were enrolled in the program with a third in waiting. The core program, as it currently stands, would appear to be suffering from a lack of resources to enable children to obtain the academic success that parents and your department are striving to achieve. Will dismantling the EFI program solve this? I feel I'm safe in saying that no, it won't, and simply robs the future children which would be enrolled in EFI of a quality education and puts them at a disadvantage at the end of their academic career in the only officially bilingual province in Canada.

As you have requested, I offer you the following alternate proposal:

1. Table any decision until consultation is complete (not a court imposed minimum schedule).
2. If we are to revamp the system so that all children in the province are to be given an equal opportunity for a bilingual education, then the school system(s) in New Brunswick should be revamped to offer one system of education for each and every child in the province, Francophone or Anglophone. This would be similar to models used in Europe where multiple languages are mastered by students.
3. The education system needs to recognize that everyone is not equal academically. They should be treated equally when given the opportunity, however, some students will experience difficulties and some may even fail and those children must continue to work to achieve the appropriate skills before advancing to the next grade. Promotion for social and emotional reasons is not in the best interest of the student and does nothing to assist them in the long run.

I trust you will give my proposal serious consideration and not rush to implement your plan as it does not provide a viable solution to the problem affecting the core program as it exists and only serves to penalize children who are capable of being effectively educated in the French language in an immersed educational environment.

Decisions affecting the children of this province should not be made based on flawed reports. Perhaps, it would be worth evaluating the European models for second language instruction. It appears that they have it down pat.

Early Immersion is the premier system in the country. It does not make sense to eliminate the Cadillac system and "dumb down" the best expected outcome. The Intensive French program may do a better job in Core and Late Immersion education (However, this remains to be seen with the proposed elimination of Core prefacing the program and some graduating student's results) Perhaps it would be worth looking at the report that was given to government last summer done by actual French Second Language professionals.

One solution would be to put Early Immersion in all schools and offer as an alternative the Core program. Many students do not enroll in the early program based on travel distances. This would also improve the numbers of "Advanced" graduates.

I would think the the Ombudsman's proposal for consultation would have been more realistic rather than March Break and Summer Vacation (if consultation was truly desired).

It is unlikely that with a month before the start of the scool year anything but the Minister's preordained conclusions could be implemented.

I may be waiting until the final day to voice my opinions and give my suggestions, but I wanted to wait and see just what it was that people were seeing and feeling before I did pass along my thoughts and suggestions.

I can see things from both the teacher's and student's perspective due to a family connection in both ways.

In the past two years a newer ciriculum of French teaching has seen a combination of sign language and Oral comprehension and I can say not only from the second hand feedback I have heard, but from first-hand knowledge the improvements that this particular form of teaching students has shown in their ability to learn French at a substancial rate. Even immigrant children who are even struggling to learn English at the same time are picking up both French and English with relatively ease, due to this particular form of teaching.

My suggestion in what to do would be to have the use of this sign language form or (AIM program) used in the early grades, followed by core/immersion French then at later grades an intensive style form.

Now, not all children will be able to learn French, due to disabilities of one sort or another, but I think for them, a more visual approach could be used, as pictures are one thing that we all can learn from no matter what our disability (blindness not included).

There have been some good suggestions here and I hope Mr. Lamrock you will take each and every one of them seriously and not just go with your original plan. There are some good points here and I feel you could do well by using some of them as a form to make the new curriculum of the program for French learning in NB. Doing away with it completely in the early grades is not the answer. Specialize focus at each level may be the route to take, but I am not an expert of any sort, but how I see it best to be undertaken. Thanks again and I do look forward to seeing just how it comes out.

I feel that it is wrong for the Early Immersion AND Core French to be totally eliminated from existence. Each of these programs is very valuable to the focus of students that they serve. Some adjustments to the programs for sure is needed.

I have gone through the Early Immersion Education program. I started in grade 1 and finished in grade 12. This immersion program as helped me succeed through my highschool and higher education career. In EVERY job I have worked, my knowledge of french as a second language has helped me. Whether it be in a clothing store, as an operator, as a librarian or anywhere within the province of New Brunswick, since we are a bilingual province. By taking this OPPORTUNITY away from other students in the province, you take away their chances in being hired for certain jobs, certain graduate programs and life experiences are altered. I feel it is OBVIOUS we need french as a second language in our schools.

I am glad the government has chosen to evaluate our second language education programs as a demonstration of its importance. Unfortunately, in order to do an effective job, rational decisions must be made on the basis of the data at hand. It seems that thus far the Minister's deisions were based on a flawed report. Fortunately, the Minister has taken this recent opportunity to reflect on the situation and open the process to more public input. The education of our children is of paramount importance. We are training our future doctors, tradespeople, and teachers. We must give children the tools to be effective in their chosen profession regardless of wheather they are communicating in French or English.

The current data supports the earlier entry points as preferable with the highest typical proficiency outcomes. It would likely be prudent to have a single Kindergarten entry point for an early immersion program. As well, a more concerted effort should be made to ensure that parents are educated to the benefits of the program. This is the entry point that parents have the most influence. This education would likely pay the highest dividends in terms both of participation and proficiency.

Elimination of this program will reduce immersion students opportunities of French post secondary educational opportunities, diminish the employment opportunities, and further reduce the pool of qualified candidates for French teaching opportunities (when the system clearly requires more).

Intensive French clearly offers advantages over the existing core program, however, I am concerned that the program was piloted with Core leading up until the Intensive French year. If the change is to be made, shouldn't we evaluate the program as it is to be delivered? Regardless, hopefully this will boost the outcomes of both the Core and Late French Immersion Programs.

Basically, I would propose an Early Immersion program with a Kindergarden entry point with tapering off French instrucion levels starting at grade 3. The alternate would be the Core instruction until an Intensive French year in grade 4 after which a decision would be made as to whether to continue in Core or Late Immersion.

There should be increased targets for enrollment in both immersion and parental education to meet those targets. As a minimum Early Imersion and Core must be available to all students at all schools.

Would we tolerate a reduction in English Second Language Targets?

It is important that all parties involved with this decision making process are fully invested in the process. That they intend to have their children participate in the public Anglophone system.

I fully support your decision to replece early French immersion. I sincerely hope your final decision will be based on the sound pedagogy on which this decision was originally made and that you will not be influenced by a very vocal minority who want to retain a privileged system for their children. Equality means equal opportunity for all which the revised system will create.
Thank you.

I have been involved with these programs for over 40 years as a student, as an employee, as a parent and most recently as Vice President of Canadian Parents for French (Ontario). As a student, I had the opportunity to try both Immersion and Core French. I am watching this situation and feel the need to provide some information. Despite the many attempts to get at the important facts of this debate there are many points that still need to be clarified.

The difference between Early Immersion, Core French and Intensive French:

Early French Immersion has a minimum of 3800 hours and up to 6700 hrs French instructional time in elementary (up to grade 8) with a minimum of 10 and up to 16 credits in secondary;
Extended French has a minimum of 1280 hours in elementary and a minimum of 7 credits in secondary
Core French has 600 hrs (Gr 1-8) at the elementary level with 1-4 credits at secondary
Intensive French has approx 350 hours in one year concentrated over half a year with Core French for three years ( Gr 6-8) at elementary or
Late Immersion in grade 6 they would have up to 1800 hrs (Gr 6-8) and depending on whether they pursue Core or Late Immersion 1-16 credits would be taken at the secondary level.
We have no data yet on how many students enter Late Immersion from Intensive French

*(Using figures compiled for the Minister of Education in Ontario)

Time on task makes a difference. In addition to the quality of the teaching, the level of proficiency a student reaches is related to how many hours of instruction they have received. Studies have shown that Early Immersion students vastly outperform their Core French counterparts. In a study done in Edmonton many of them had a level of bilingualism good enough to get a job in the Federal Civil Service. Intensive French students who have been tested have an oral proficiency level roughly equal to Gr 9 or 10 Core French students. Information is not yet available on comparisons between Immersion and Intensive French students.

The proficiency targets set for Intensive French are so much lower than the levels that Immersion students achieved that New Brunswickers will feel betrayed if no one can speak French several years into this transition.

If on the other hand, the program proves to be successful and all these students go into Late French Immersion then you face the very significant challenge of finding specialists and resources to teach secondary LFI courses.

New Brunswick is an officially bilingual province. Many graduates need a strong level of proficiency in French to obtain a job. Currently New Brunswick has the second highest level of bilingual graduates next to Quebec.

Canadian Parents for French, Dr. Fred Genesee and Dr. Joseph Dicks, Dr. Sally Rehorick and many others have all outlined what needs to be done to increase the capacity of the FSL teachers to provide support to students who are struggling so that they can stay in the program, succeed and graduate with the additional tool of bilingualism.... You have an excellent plan written in 2006 by Sally Rehorick and Joseph Dicks.

Public Education needs to be inclusive and accessible. French Immersion is an excellent program. Parents choose it because it has many benefits: Students learn French - They are more tolerant of different cultures - They have tremendous parental and peer support which extends to the teachers and .there are many cognitive benefits from the program itself. It is an excellent program and many parents choose it simply because it is excellent.

Stats Canada research showed that even when you compare French Immersion students to their peers in English from the same socio-economic background, they still outperform their peers in literacy tests. The program works. It has benefits beyond learning French that extend into their first language, so they do better on literacy tests.not because they are smarter. Why would you cancel a program that works that well? To do to improve literacy . is expand and strengthen French Immersion and .duplicate the factors that make the program so successful in the English program.

Intensive French may be a very successful alternative to Core French but it is not a substitute for Immersion. It has not been proven under the conditions that you are proposing. It has been tested with students who already had some Core French. This is too much change too fast. There are not enough trained teachers, resources, understanding of the program and pedagogy. A gradual implementation and growth would allow for the proper training of teachers and development of the resources needed.

You have the expertise of many French Language experts to draw upon. They have told you that Early French Immersion is the most effective and universal way to produce a high level of oral fluency in the most children. It has the best results for the most people.

With respect to streaming: clearly there is a problem. The solution seems obvious. You need FSL teachers with Special Ed qualifications to support more students in Early French Immersion.

How long would it take to have FSL teachers with Spec Ed qualifications? Consultation with experts in this field indicates that it would take approximately two years to provide Spec Ed training to enough FSL teachers. Surely the cost for this training would be cheaper and have more long term benefits to New Brunswick than dismantling an effective program that produces a high number of functionally bilingual graduates. Proficiency: Your goal of 70% of students achieving a level of intermediate proficiency is extremely misleading. This is a core French goal and will be far below what New Brunswickers have come to expect the term "bilingual" to mean as a result of French Immersion - Intermediate Plus or Higher.

Graduation Rates: In New Brunswick 81.5% of students complete high school.

Late Immersion and Intensive French: For these students to achieve the level of bilingualism that New Brunswickers as used to, all Grade 5 Intensive French students would have to move into Late Immersion. In order to have 70% of your graduates graduate bilingual ( ie able to work or pursue post secondary education in French/ Intermediate Plus or higher) more than 70% must opt to take Late French Immersion.

While Late Immersion works well for those who take it and finish, it tends to attract only very strong students ( ie streaming) who are confident that they can handle the demands of learning a second language along with obtaining the necessary university or college pre-requisites in a second language. If you are lucky enough to be able to offer the course selection for non-academic subjects then the program becomes an option for many other students.

It requires specialists in many subjects as you are now dealing with secondary school subjects. Attracting qualified FSL teachers for elementary is difficult enough. It becomes even more challenging when you have to attract FSL Specialist teachers for secondary. Ottawa District School Board just cancelled late immersion because of its very low enrolment and decided to strength its Early Immersion program because it is more effective.

Listen to the research and put together a plan that strengthens Early Immersion with Spec Ed support that allows more students to benefit and stay in the program.

Mr. Lamrock,

I have already made my views known before you made your decision to abolish EFI by writing to you, to the premier and to Mr. Boudreau, my MLA. Obviously, the points I made were not enough to make you change your mind and so I will not reiterate them.

However, as the deadline for submissions approaches, I wish to add a last personal note. Upon reading Mr. Greg Byrne's submission to our local paper, The Tribune, I was interested to read about the efforts that the NB government has been making to increase NB's population with an increase of 2,600 recorded last year. Bravo for that!

However, I want you to know how sad I felt when I read his words, "I encourage those readers who have seen one or more of their loved ones move away, to speak to them about the changing face of New Brunswick." Indeed, a changing face that will not work in my favour to encourage our 2 children, currently in universities, to return to their home province. I know that they will not settle in a province that will not provide their children with an education at least on par with the one they were so fortunate to get in New Brunswick.

Lowering the standard for French Second Language will work against the population growth which your colleagues understand is one of the keys to development and prosperity in New Brunswick. It also has a negative personal impact on New Brunswick families.

In order to improve education within the province of New Brunswick, New Brunswickers and the government must be as dedicated to educating our children as they are to improving the current health care system. This means allocating more funding to the education system in order to provide children of all learning capabilities with the best education that can be received. In order to achieve this goal, the Department of Education must be open to formulating more than one curriculum, as it will take many curricula to be successful.

With regards to addressing the low French proficiency achieved with the province's current curricula, one must address the areas of concern. It has become apparent that children participating in the current 'Core Program' do not generally achieve high levels of French proficiency. Therefore it would stand to reason that this is the program that requires change. It is a well known fact that the earlier a child is exposed to a new language the more proficient they will become in that language. I would suggest that offering some French as early as kindergarten would probably help to increase French proficiency. I would also improve the French curriculum that is offered in the core program. The Early French Immersion program is also essential as these children generally score the highest on French proficiency testing (both oral and written).

Increasing our children's overall achievement in literacy, mathematics and science can occur whether they are being educated primarily in french or english, as these are universal subjects that can be taught in any language. A child who is taught to enjoy reading will read. With regards to math and science, including these subjects at a higher concentration during elementary school will help to improve our children's scores in these subjects. As a mother of a child who just finished grade two, I can honestly say how disappointed I have been with the amount of time spent on math and science. I realize that during the younger grades the focus is on literacy. I also understand that in order to be able to study other subjects, being able to read well is important. What I do not understand is why reading, math and science cannot be combined in order that children will receive increased exposure to all three. It stands to reason that a child who may find reading difficult but may enjoy science would be more likely to read a book about science than they would be to read a story book. Music can be incooporated in a math curriculum as music is known to help a child improve their ability to understand math. Art can be incooporated with almost any subject. Finally, ensuring that our children are sent outside to play during recess and after eating lunch will help to increase their amount of physical activity during the day (not everything has to be an organized activity).

Unfortunately, streaming must occur in order for every child in New Brunswick to be educated at a level that best meets their needs. Eliminating Early French Immersion is a detriment to children who require an extra challenge in school in order to not find school boring. One must also provide children who have a more difficult time learning with an interesting and appropriately challenging curriculum so that they do not become discouraged with school and/or develop poor self-esteems. Ensuring that teachers who have an increased number of children with learning challenges receive more help in the classroom is also essential to the learning of every child in the class.

I realize that there is no one best way to educate all the children in our province. I also realize that education is a very complex issue that has to meet the needs of many different types of children. I would like to conclude by saying that I feel that the elimination of the Early French Immersion Program from our education system would be a terrible diservice to all New Brunswickers. New Brunswick is the only official bilingual province in Canada, and we should be proud that we are able to educate our children in a way that they are able to function fully in both official languages. We will be removing this right from future generations with the elimination of Early French Immersion.

I do not think the elimination of early immersion will accomplish the government's goal of ensuring our status as a bilingual province improves.
Children are proven to be better able to learn a new language at an early age, rather than learning later. I have benefitted from the early immmersion program myself. I know my French language skills are excellent all because of my early immersion education. I have also had the benefit of being able to conduct interviews through previous work positions, and have found that those who have participated in the early immersion program often had a significantly better knowledge of the French language as well as superior pronounciation of the French vocabulary.
I think the intensive French program, as proposed by the provincial government, would benefit those who don't choose the early immersion program. There by ensuring that everyone does get the benefit of French training.
I also think it is important to ensure that everyone has the option of taking courses in French in high school. When I attended high school, the only options for those who wished to take French classes was a language arts class and a history class. The French language classes were offered for every year of high school, but there were few history classes, and I was finished my history by grade 11. In addition, I have had some friends that felt these classes were not options for them as they conflicted with science classes that they wished to take in order to get in to specific science oriented degrees in university.
I do, however, think that should also be the option of an 'English only' training for those that perhaps have extreme difficulty in learning a second language.

I am in support of your proposed plans for education in the province of New Brunswick, and I also believe that many of my colleagues who feel this way are opting to not share their views in this forum for fear of negative repurcussions.

As a multilingual person myself, I believe that the general proficiency and the academic standing of students in N.B could be improved the best if they are instructed in their spoken language first. The current system as it is now does not seem to be working. It is most definitely perpetuating the class system between English and French, with the immersion classes being the elitist. This is not an English/French issue; this is an education issue that effects all students of New Brunswick. Public school system cannot be expected to be all things to all people, and yet, accomplish the highest standards. Why not all students in New Brunswick public school system have the option of attending either a French school or an English school (why is it that a child with two English speaking parents cannot attend a French school but this is not the case the other way around?).

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to share my views on this subject!

I am 7 years old. I live in Ontario. I just finished grade 1 and I love being in French Immersion. It means I can go to different places and talk to people who speak French. When I went to Quebec in March, I had to help my mom and dad a lot because they don't speak very much French. I would be sad if I couldn't learn French until I was older.

No offense or anything but I really do not like the idea of getting rid of early French Immersion. To tell you the truth I hate it! You want to know why - because I just finished grade five French immersion and I can speak to just about anyone in French. I've been in French Immersion since SK. If I just finished my first year in French I don't think I could speak French as well as I do and that would mean I couldn't talk to as many people as I do now. We've been camping in New Brunswick and have visited Quebec and I love being able to talk to people who don't speak English. Like anything, the more you practice something the better you get. I actually want to be a French immersion teacher when I grow up. So think, is what you are trying to do really necessary? Think hard about what I said and please change your mind!

As early French immersion students going into grade 8 we are concerned about the education of children in New Brunswick. We think that substituting French Immersion from Senior Kindergarten to grade five for one year of French in grade 5 would decrease the amount of French the students would learn. Spreading French throughout all of elementary school would allow the students to practice their French for much longer and become more fluent in their second language.

As a member of CPF Ontario and a parent of 3 children in Early French Immersion (EFI), I was shocked to learn earlier this year about the possible cancellation of EFI in New Brunswick. There are a number of very well-documented reasons why early immersion works so well.

Studies indicate that the earlier children are exposed to a second language, the better the linguistic outcomes. At one of his roundtable discussions, the New Brunswick Minister of Education, Kelly Lamrock stated that he thinks, "everyone agrees we want as many children as possible, preferably all of them, to have the ability to speak a second language." If this is the case, and it is common knowledge that children acquire a second language more easily at a younger age, then what is the motive for the elimination of EFI?

If one is to look at the number of hours of French instruction in various French programs, it is clear to see how EFI students are at a considerable advantage at acquiring the French language. In EFI, students receive approximately 6700 hours of French instruction while core French students receive approximately 600 hours between grades 1-8 and Intensive French students receive approximately 650 hours. If it were any other subject, people would undeniably argue that the more hours of instruction in a particular area would lead to better outcomes. Wouldn't a child receiving 10 times the amount of instruction in math perform significantly better than his/her counterparts? It seems so blatantly obvious yet, seemingly well-educated individuals fail to see this.

Immersion programs and second language learning has been associated with improved outcomes in reading and writing in both languages, math, creative thinking and problem solving. Studies show that students experiencing reading difficulties in a second language experience the same challenges in their first language. Acknowledging and addressing these challenges regardless of the language of instruction is essential for the well-being, development and success of any child. Removing a child from EFI simply because they are experiencing some challenges shouldn't be an option. Various levels of intervention that involve additional support should be put in place in any program before programming changes are made.

I see tremendous merit in the idea of replacing gr. 4-8 core French with a year of intensive French at the grade 5 level and making French instruction mandatory either through late-immersion or post-intensive programs from grades 6-12 for students who opt not to enroll in EFI. However, the idea of substituting EFI with Intensive French seems ludicrous.

Instead of eliminating EFI and replacing it with Intensive French at the grade 5 level, the government should be looking at ways to improve their existing immersion programs. What I would propose is that more efforts are put into recruiting qualified French speaking resource teachers to support students who are experiencing difficulty at school. If resource help is made available to students enrolled in EFI, more students would remain in the program. EFI also needs to be made truly accessible to all so young students are not spending ridiculous amounts of time being transported to and from school. In addition, more emphasis needs to be put on course availability and selection at the secondary level so students do not have to pick one program (e.g., IB) over another. If all of these issues were addressed, I think the government would see a huge increase in the number of students graduating with a strong level of proficiency in French.

While I don't argue that there would be considerable benefits in implementing a year of intensive French at the gr. 5 level and mandatory French instruction from grades 6-12 for students who are not enrolled in EFI, I see the elimination of EFI as a huge step backwards. Why does one program have to replace another?

I am writing to add my name to the list of individuals who are asking that you reconsider your original decision to eliminate the existing Early French Immersion Program. Like many, I don't disagree that there are issues to be addressed in the school system (e.g. the streaming problems we have been hearing so much about) - however, I truly do not believe that the changes you have proposed will effectively solve the problem. I also believe that Grade 5 is too late to have a second language introduced to children. I am a product of the Early Immersion Program and BELIEVE to my core that New Brunswick's Early Immersion Program is an excellent program. Rather than scrap it...let's build on it to make it better. Use the money you would have spent on the original proposal on more resources for the children in the first. Please, please, please don't take the choice away from New Brunswick parents when it comes to introducing French to our children as soon as they enter the school system.

Minister Lamrock:

Thank you for the opportunity to make comments on this important issue.

First, let me explain that I have no personal interest in these matters. My wife and I do not have children and neither of us work in the education field. My comments are only as a concerned citizen.

By way of introduction, while some may argue that my position and concerns should be given less weight than persons who have children directly impacted by any decision on this matter, I disagree with that. As a taxpayer, my taxes are used to fund the public education system. While that alone is enough to trigger equal status with any other New Brunswicker with an opinion on this issue, I also recognize that the impact of the public education system in New Brunswick is much more broad. All New Brunswickers depend on a quality education system to ensure that our province can continue to prosper and grow. All New Brunswickers depend on future generations to keep the province running. As such, we all have an equal and critical stake in the success of the public education system.

I have followed this issue with great interest and have listened to many different viewpoints. After considering all viewpoints and reading the available material I can come to no other conclusion than the plan that you introduced recently is the best possible option available for New Brunswick.

I understand and accept that the current education system is in dire need of an overhaul. The levels of illiteracy in this province are embarrassing. Much of the blame for this situation lies at the feet of the public education system. I applaud your courage to recognize this need for overhaul and to actually take a stand and decide to do something about it.

In my opinion it is self-evident that the current system is in need of repair. It appears that there are at least two distinct streams within the public education system: one for students in the FSL program and one for everyone else. I have friends and family who work in the education system and tell stories of overcrowded classrooms and students in need of a great deal of assistance in the mainstream classes. This is in striking contrast to the stories I've heard of small classes and higher-achieving students in the FSL classes.

While I can't fault them for this, parents who support the status quo in the FSL program seem willing to support a two-tiered system where their children are given advantages at the expense of other children who for whatever reason do not or cannot participate in the FSL program. It is natural for these parents to want the best for their own children, but as Minister you must consider the well-being of all children and the well-being of the province. I believe that your proposals do just that.

Opponents to your proposed changes may make the argument that these problems can be solved by improving the mainstream classes rather than scrapping the current FSL classes and using the resources more fairly. With respect, I disagree with that. New Brunswick has limited financial resources and we must ensure that all public funds are spent wisely. The education system is well funded now, and I would oppose any substantial increase in funding simply to allow the almost-private school atmosphere to continue in the FSL program. All New Brunswickers deserve equal treatment in the school system.

Finally, in my experience with public sector consultation and protest, it is my experience that when given the opportunity to speak out, usually only those who choose to do so are those with polarized positions or those with a direct interest in a public policy decision. The general population is not normally represented by these extremes. In my opinion there are a small but well-intentioned and well organized group of parents who are opposed to these changes. I do not believe that they represent the majority of New Brunswickers. As a Minister, you are obligated to consider the bigger picture.

Again, thank you for the opportunity to email you on this matter. This kind of forum allows more people to contribute where meetings and consultations may be inconvenient.

I am a grandmother of 6 children who are either in the current French Immersion program or who have graduated. I have also witnessed one of those children unable to complete the program as she was in the pilot project for immersion to start in Grade 4. This program was already evaluated and determined to be unsuccessful. So I am concerned this government is just repeating history. I always thought we were to learn from our mistakes.

I also am a French speaking Canadian brought up in Quebec. When I moved to Fredericton - my children had limited opportunites to immerse themselves in French Immersion . Ecole St. Anne did not exist. My children studied French for 12 years in the English school system and non of them are fluent in the second language of New Brunswick.

If we are truely a bilingual province then Immersion should be given to all children beginning in kindergarten. This is how the Europeans provide their language education. I do not agree with what is proposed by Minister Lamrock.

It is difficult to believe that Canada's only bilingual province has been contemplating lowering the standard for the outcome in the French Second Language (FSL) curriculum. This is one of the few areas of our education system that we are actually leading the country. We should be focused on addressing the deficiencies in the other areas of the public school system.

It has been made apparent that the Croll-Lee report is inaccurate and has evidence of bias. This has been highlighted in both the judicial review and the Ombudsman's report. Even when given the opportunity to correct the errors, no such correction was forthcoming. Subsequent analysis has indicated that the conclusions drawn are not accurate and in fact, many are contrary to conclusions drawn.

There has been much discussion around the children on special education plans. It is important to realize that the students with severe requirements are essentially on a parallel stream. They have an assigned full time aid and are not following the standard curricula. They should not be considered a drain on any program as they are fully resourced.

The streaming is actually not apparent until the later entry points for FSL education. Grade two has no evidence, while in grade eight it is apparent. It would seem to me that the key would be to capitalize on the earlier entry points. This would be in addition to the expected Advanced French level outcome from the program, which is significantly better than the expected outcomes from the later entry programs. Functional usefulness of the language and bilingual employability would be far more likely with graduates who are "Able to speak the language with sufficient structural accuracy and vocabulary to participate in most formal and informal conversations on practical, social and professional topics." versus students graduating with "The individual can get the gist of most everyday conversations but has some difficulty understanding native speakers in situations that require specialized or sophisticated knowledge. Errors are frequent."

We will find it increasingly difficult to recruit teachers and aids with Superior French if we are only graduating students with "Errors (that) are frequent." We should consider targeting high levels of proficiency (Advanced or better) as an investment in both our Province's and our children's future.

The Intensive French (IF) program was not designed to replace Early French Immersion (EFI), nor was it designed without Core French leading up to the program. It would make sense to fully evaluate the graduates of the program prior to implementing it across all of the Anglophone school system. If the desire is to eliminate Core prior to IF, then the pilot should have been run as such.

Based on the existing data, EFI should be the preferred intake for FSL students. This would allow for the best possible outcome based on the existing Canadian models. This should be resourced appropriately so that all students can be included within the program. The program should be encouraged and promoted as the preferred entry point to parents. Parents should understand that it is the default program and that they must opt out. The entry point could be moved to Kindergarten. This will ensure that a maximum number of graduates graduate with the highest levels of proficiency.

The IF program should be continued as both a supplement to core and a transition to LFI. However, it must be continued using the Core leading up until the IF year. If the desire is to eliminate Core up until the IF year, then it must be trialed in an appropriately resourced environment to ensure that the students do not suffer. FSL education should be evaluated in all students every year to ensure that accurate statistics can be generated to make informed decisions for our children's education. It would also make sense to evaluate some of the European models for second language education, as it appears that they are able to reach levels of fluency in a few years of early immersion. This would appear to be a model worth evaluating.

I am not submitting an education plan to this website because I am not an education expert nor do I think it is my place to do the job that the Minister and the Department of Education should have done in the first place.

I have taken a great deal of time to become educated about NB's education system and FSL since the announcement to eliminate EFI in March. I feel I am very informed about he issues facing DOE and how EFI may or may not fit within these issues. This has been difficult to say the least since the information provided by DOE and through the media has been, in my opinion, slanted to the outcome announced back in March.

I believe the best beginning point for FSL is kindergarten. I believe that all NB children should exposed to a second language at the earliest point of their education career. Our oldest child started EFI in kindergarten. He was not a pre-reader but our teachers assured us that if we gave him to them for the first two years (K-1) a strong base for french language would be the outcome. We were nervous about this but we trusted his teachers. We were also assured that any learning difficulties he or his classmates would encounter would not be a problem since they were supported to provide extra help and we as parents were willing to help. The outcome for our son is that he has a very strong abiltiy to read and write in French, an excellent accent and enounciation and when he began English in Grade 2 he caught right up with his reading and spelling with his non-EFI pals. This was all accomplished in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.

Our youngest child is caught in the current debate. She is enrolled in EFI for this September. Due to our recent move back to NB she did not start EFI in kindergarten as it was not offered. She is developing at her own pace however we were informed by her kindergarten teacher that she is not a "good candidate" for EFI because she is not at the top of the class. Here is one cause of streaming.

My recommendation moving forward is that all FSL start in kindergarten. EFI children should start english in grade 2. Core children should be given the opportunity to participate in intensive french if they have a desire to reach an intermediate competency. The department should reassess their dispersion of support services and allow parents some confidence that if a child were to encounter problems in EFI they will be supported.

Finally a plan needs to be put in place for the children who are caught between these changes. Our youngest child should have the opportunity to have EFI in grade one so that any changes would be implemented for the children entering into kindergarten. Otherwise she will be lost within any proposed shift.

Dear Minister Lamrock and Department of Education senior officials,

I am writing to convey my views on your proposed changes to French Second Language education in New Brunswick. I write as a mother of three young children, one a kindergartener registered for EFI this fall. While no expert on education, I have followed the debate with interest since the Minister's announcement in March and have sought to become as informed as possible as to the issues and the New Brunswick reality.

In an effort to keep my submission short, I will not go into great detail in outlining my rationale for the suggestions I offer, as much has already been written and debated on this topic over the last few months. I am more than willing to provide further details as desired, and my contact information is listed at the end of this submission.

The following is a summary of my suggested priorities and suggested actions in order to address the Minister's stated concerns.

1. PRIORITY: ADVANCED PROFICIENCY IN FRENCH LANGUAGE

I believe it is crucial for New Brunswick's future as a bilingual province, for the continued rapprochement between Anglophones and Francophones, and for our competitiveness as a province that our education system be geared towards providing an advanced level of proficiency for as many students as possible. There is little evidence that Intensive French will achieve this and we know that Late French Immersion works best for academically advanced students - a minority of students.

Early French immersion assists the largest number and most heterogeneous group of students achieve advanced levels of proficiency (see the Ottawa-Carleton School Board report, September 2007).

SUGGEST: Retain Early French Immersion starting in Grade 1 or at the very, very latest Grade 3. Introduce French language utilizing the Advanced Integrated Method in Kindergarten. Engage parents early on in the kindergarten year regarding the benefits of early language acquisition. Aim to increase EFI enrollments across socio-economic and learning ability boundaries.

2. PRIORITY: INCREASED EXPOSURE TO ART, GYM AND MUSIC

I understand the Minister's desire to increase exposure to art, music and gym time for elementary students. This does not have to happen at the expense of French language training and EFI.

SUGGEST: A blended immersion approach where students come together to learn art, music and gym, and then move off to separate French Immersion and English classrooms. Where teachers are bilingual, use of both French and English in delivery of art, music and gym curriculum (useful for both Immersion and non-immersion students). May reduce % of French instruction time for Immersion students, but is an important trade-off for enhanced art, music and gym time, and reduced separation between Immersion and non-Immersion students (see below).

3. PRIORITY: REDUCE "STREAMING"

The Minister has highlighted "streaming" as a fundamental issue of concern to be addressed. I question the impact of "streaming" on literacy and math scores, as Dept. of Education statistics show that there is no evidence of streaming affecting test scores in Grades 2 and 4, and a minimal effect in Grade 5. Much has also been made of students on SEPs being concentrated in the Core/English classes. However, removal of EFI will on average reduce the number of students on SEPs per class by a little of over 1 child per class. I question whether this change will result in a significant improvement in classroom environments and test scores.

SUGGEST: Use a "blended immersion" approach. Promote idea of single grade cohort, with plenty of peer interaction between students in the same grade level, during art, music and gym time, as well as school excursions and events. This approach will encourage peer leadership and enhanced playground and classroom interaction between students.

Encourage students on SEPs/with "exceptionalities" to remain in Immersion program by providing support with appropriate resources (look to Nova Scotia for a model). Use Joe Dicks plan for increasing bilingual resource and methods teachers. Consult Fred Genesee for research/program ideas regarding students with exceptionalities and second language acquisition.

Support NB's inclusive system with appropriate resources - support teachers and the whole classroom, as well as the students on SEPs.

4. PRIORITY: NO RUSHED CHANGES TO FSL PROGRAMMING

The Croll-Lee report has been widely discredited and cannot be used as the basis of changes to the NB French Second Language programming. It is very important that the Minister and the Department of Education take additional time to consider the wide range of options available for implementation. Student, teacher interests and the New Brunswick population as a whole will not be served well by the rushed implementation of changes suggested by the Croll-Lee report.

SUGGEST: The government takes a further six months to consider what changes will best achieve its desired goals and aim for implementation by September 2009. Grandfather the kindergartners currently registered for EFI, while proceeding with implementation of an enhanced art, music and gym curriculum. Consider retaining a French language element for all grades. Continue with expansion of Intensive French in Grade 5 as a way of enhancing Core French, NOT replacing EFI.

5. PRIORITY: IMPROVED LITERACY AND MATH SCORES

The government has highlighted its desire to improve math and literacy scores across the province. I think EFI has been mistakenly blamed as the reason for poor scores in some areas. District 18 has a high take-up of EFI but the PISA scores of its students rank amongst the top in the country. Many studies have shown that second language instruction has benefits for students for their first language and overall academic performance.

SUGGEST: Other root causes of poor performance need to be investigated. Early childhood initiatives that cut across socio-economic divides and encourage a pro-learning attitude are key to improving outcomes in New Brunswick's education system. Offering ongoing education of parents, supporting them to support their children's academic performance is one way of improving the overall educational environment for all New Brunswick's students.

There are many other issues surrounding this topic that merit discussion, but these are the ones I want to highlight in order to keep my submission brief. I sincerely hope that you will listen to the wide range of stakeholders who have made their views known during this process, and work towards creating an education system that prioritises both bilingualism and improved schooling outcomes for all students.

Thank you,

As an educator in the N.B. public school system I am perplexed and extremely disappointed at what appears to be a double standard when it comes to second language acquisition in our province. The citizens of New Brunswick should be aware that although the Minister of Education is considering removal of the French Immersion program and any sort of instruction in French to anglophone students until Grade 5, the same is not true for second language instruction in the francophone sector of our province. In fact, it appears to contradict what is being proposed for students in the anglophone sector of our province. In some francophone school districts over the past few years a program called "Eveil à l'anglais" was implemented and young francophone students began English instruction in Kindergarten, Grade 1 and Grade 2. Another program which provides 150 minutes of English language instruction to francophone students in Grade 3 through Grade 8 continues as a regular part of their second language instruction. Beginning this fall, the "Eveil à l'anglais" program which furnishes English language instruction for francophone students in Kindergarten, Grade 1 and Grade 2 is being expanded to all schools in District 9 (francophone) and every school in District 5 (francophone) except 2 schools in the Bathurst area. There are several questions that must be asked related to this knowledge. Why does it appear that both the anglophone and francophone school districts are being told two completely different stories with respect to second language acquisition methodology? Why is the "Eveil à l'anglais" program not even mentioned on the Government of New Brunswick Education website? Why is it that one linguistic group is receiving completely different treatment than the other? It appears that one sort of methodology is just fine for one linguistic group, yet for another it seems totally inadequate and unacceptable. The appearance is one of inequality. Minister Lamrock has insisted that his decision to eliminate French Immersion and implementation of the Intensive French program from Grade 5 through Grade 12 was about fairness to everyone. It resembles unequal treatment according to which linguistic group the minister is dealing with. Is the Minister of Education hiding something from the people of New Brunswick? It would seem that this might be the case. There is absolutely no mention of "Eveil à l'anglais" as a program that is being implemented in the francophone sector on the government website. This surely gives the impression that something surreptitious and not straightforward is occurring. If one thinks of the expression "What is good for the goose, is good for the gander", this would suggest that if francophone students can start English language instruction in Kindergarten, then, young anglophone students should have the same opportunity to learn French starting in Kindergarten also. Why is this not being proposed? One would have to ask the Minister Lamrock. One is given the impression that this is completely divisive and sets out unfair and unequal treatment amongst anglophone and francophone students. This sends the message that "OK, this kind of treatment is fine for one group, but not for another". This is the height of unfairness and hypocrisy! Minister Lamrock please ensure that the same standard is applied to all New Brunswick public school students both francophone and anglophone!

I find Mr. Lamrock's decision to be uneducated and disgusting. It was clear to me from the very beginning that Mr. Lamrock had a report written to reflect what he wanted and didn't make a decision based on a report. How else could he have made a public announcement with a plan already in place less than two weeks after the date the report was submitted.

French Immersion has been a successful program in this province for more than 30 years now. Is it perfect? Of course not. ALL programs should be changed and updated, and improvements made where necessary. How sad that our government made the choice to end something good instead of making it better. Funny, I thought we were supposed to have responsible government.

It shames me to be from the only bilingual province in the country and to have my education minister prevent English speaking families from making the choice of what language to educate their children in.

Minister Lamrock,

Let me begin by telling you that I appreciate your courage and fortitude to tackle the issue of language education in New Brunswick. In particular to try to do something about the low numbers graduating with good bilingual capabilities and the negative effect that EFI (in particular) has on the the majority of our students. It is a disgrace that it has taken so long to raise these issues.

I'm sure you would have expected an outcry with the decision re EFI but you should not have to take the abuse coming from the well-heeled vested interests.

You might feel better if you knew that a decision to eliminate EFI has the support of many, many people and that there is tons of evidence that streaming does not help students learn more.

I know you are soliciting proposals to improve both the qantity and quality of FSL. Here are mine.

1 Eliminate FI programs (early and late) 2.Replace the current core French program with modules/exposure to French in grades k to 4.

3.Implement the intensive French program at grade 5 4. Restart the core French program in grade 6 and make French compulsory until students demonstrate a functional level of bilingualism. Having achieved this level students are not required to continue in French.

5. Make grade 9 another intensive French year. This would help most students to finish their French requirements by the end of Grade 10.

5. For students who wish their French to be of a higher standard I propose opportunities for them to take some courses in Francophone high schools in grades 11/12. (The same opportunity should be made for Francophone students to study in Anglophone schools.) Alternatively offer FI in a new grade 13 if possible with connections to post-secondary institutions and the work place.

You will note my recommendation to abolish late immersion. I am afraid that streaming will have its negative effect on this age group and will diminish the expectation of functional bilingualism for all students and produce classes that are difficult to teach. Better to keep students together until they reach the standard. Thank you for the opportunity of offering these proposals. Good luck.

Well, here we are. What a waste of time. We all know Kelly Lamrock has his own politiacl agenda to implement his radical changes now before it becomes an election topic - he knows what political suicide that would be.

Am I skeptical about our Minister? You bet. His actions speak louder than his double talk.

For example,

Kelly recently cancelled EFI literacy support (the very day of the court ruling ironically) to those currently enrolled in EFI. Like my son in grade 3 French Immersion.

So Kelly will be able to use the comparison of how EFI is failing - with poor literacy scores - next year against his plan. At the cost of my son's literacy education.

I am looking at enroll my grade one child into private school. I can't afford it really. And I will have to let my son in grade 3 suffer the consequences of Kelly's actions in public school. But I am willing to put my daughter's education on credit card to spare her the grief of being a guinia pig in Kelly's manipulating plan.

But oh by the way, New Brunswick is one of the ONLY provinces to NOT provide a tax benefit for those who choose this avenue. He'll use my daughter's slotted money for bettering the public school at my expense without me getting any tax break. I guess I shouldn't expect anything more really. Afterall, according to Kelly, I am an elitist.

So, August 5 will come and go.

My prediction is, Kelly will implement things this September. Because forcing things through this September buys him a year of more manipulated data to support his scheme.

But I'm sure we will see a few superficial changes August 5th. With lots of ads in the paper and an interview on tv with him.

Great.

Like many others, I am very disappointed that this change to the education system is even being considered. While I acknowledge that there are problems with the current system, the age that french immersion is offered is not one of them. Eliminating french prior to grade five will only make learning a second language that much more difficult for the students. Anyone with a child of that age would agree.
Amalgamating the french immersion students with those opting not to enroll, becasue it is a choice, I belive only does a disservice to those that want to learn french. It does nothing to improve the quality of the education being offered. If the New Brunswick government is sincere in addressing the issues with the school curriculum, they should focus on solving the problems, not covering them up with reckless changes that provide no benefit to anyone.
While I do not pretend to have all the answers, I think that there is a much better solution than the one being proposed.

Dear Minister Lamrock,

As a follow-up to meeting with my local MLA I am writing to request that you reconsider your decision to eliminate Early French Immersion (EFI). As a concerned parent and supporter of EFI I feel that the Liberal government is acting irresponsibly by allowing the opportunity for meaningful consultation to be bound into a six week period.

I am not an expert in the field of education but feel that an appropriate consultation process should be established including full and open input from literacy, second language and education experts for the purpose of improving the early education system in New Brunswick for all. With all due respect, the Education Minister, who is elected by the citizens of New Brunswick, should take the appropriate amount of time to evaluate all proposals. This decision is too monumental to be made in haste and the children of New Brunswick deserve a fair process.

In conclusion I believe that living in a bilingual province all children should have the choice to learn a second language from an early age.

Thank you.

Minister Lamrock:

I count myself fortunate as one of Fredericton's early graduates of EFI. Had I been born just a few years earlier or in one of many of New Brunswick's rural communities, I would not have benefited from the ability in childhood to communicate freely with francophone peers at sporting events and summer camps, the freedom in adulthood to travel unencumbered by language barriers, and the capacity to obtain employment requiring the use of English and French as early as high school and into my job today.

Even before I was ready to plan a family, I planned to enrol my children in EFI. You yourself have referred to it as the Cadillac of programmes. This labelling is misleading in the sense that EFI costs no more than other programmes. But EFI has proven to be the best option available for promoting academic distinction, cultural understanding, and full bilingualism. I wish that all parents understood this and were able to provide it for their children.

Since your goal in redesigning the anglophone education system is to realize not only equality but also excellence, I would propose that you ensure that all children have access to and thrive in the programme in which excellence has proven most likely.

EFI is already available to nearly 80% of the population in the technical sense. But because of the countless myths that surround EFI, many parents are not aware that it is an option for their children. This needs to be rectified through ongoing parental education. Parents need to understand the multitude of benefits offered to children in EFI - increased cognitive ability and future employability being two key advantages. Parents need to understand that their inability to speak French in no way hampers their children's ability to thrive in EFI, that EFI is specifically designed for children of anglophone parents. Parents also need to be reassured that support exists within EFI to respond to the special needs of their children.

Of course, the management of the programme to date has meant this last point isn't true - but it is vital that it become true if we are to provide the best education possible to all of our children.

You have expressed concerns about the lack of suitable bilingual candidates to fill support positions. Our province's TAs, however, require no special training beyond a high school education, and many bilingual New Brunswickers would eagerly accept positions that pay, though not handsomely, about twice the provincial minimum wage. Dr. Dicks has presented a model for intensive bilingual R&M training that would yield over the course of a single summer a qualified pool from within the existing ranks of bilingual educators. Moving forward, education students would certainly choose this specialty if it were one which the government sought to hire.

The exhaustive research of Dr. Genesee and his colleagues in the field of dual language education and developmental disorders shows that students who are often seen to be disadvantaged in an immersion environment in fact fare as well academically as their equivalents in a non-immersion classroom. This reality applies to students from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds, those with challenged or low intellectual ability, and those with language impairments. Retaining those children in EFI would allow them to attain the same level of academic achievement as they would in Core while entering the workforce with the important edge that bilingualism provides.

EFI must be made available to the approximately 20% of New Brunswickers who live in rural areas where it is not currently available. Certainly there must be adequate demand to fund a programme responsibly; but return to the premise above: if parents were properly educated about the realities of EFI instead of being left in the mire of myths about the programme, demand would most certainly increase sufficiently. I do not suggest that the solution is as easy as "why don't you just ." but I would suggest that the government needs to be proactive in promoting and then implementing EFI in rural areas. Do parents know that even if EFI is not currently taught at their school that it will be implemented given sufficient numbers? Are parents of kindergarten children brought together for an information session on EFI and then provided the tools to make a collective decision? This information is of course available for those who know where to look, but is it actively and consistently communicated and explained to the families that are impacted? Are parents given the option of conjoining with a second or third school zone to realize the numbers required to warrant an EFI class?

I have long thought that EFI should be the default choice of Anglophones in a province in which bilingualism is increasingly a prerequisite to good employment. Even in areas that have been traditionally Anglophone, such as Saint John, the francophone population is growing. The province must honour its commitment to provide all of its services in the citizen's language of choice, and must create a bilingual workforce that is equipped to do so. The notion that students can achieve full bilingualism as part of their post-secondary studies is deeply misguided: nearly 40% of the workforce completes their education with high school graduation; many jobs that require bilingualism do not also require higher education; high school and university students rely on their bilingualism for summer employment. Pointedly, the mandate of our post-secondary education system does not include comprehensive language training, nor should it. It is further not equipped to take on this role, nor will it become through your government's "Action Plan to Transform Post-Secondary Education."

Our government's goal is to provide the best education for our students. To achieve this, we must provide accessibility to all to the programme that has proven to be the best. EFI must be managed in a way that makes it universally available and supportable. In your efforts to bring greater equality to our school system, please do not disadvantage all of our children by denying them that which is available in every other Canadian province. Please create the equality you seek by advantaging all children. Making New Brunswick a "have" province with the best bilingual education will be a key marker in taking us from a "have not" to the self-sufficient province your government is seeking to build.

I have read all the varying opinions about EFI, it's various benefits and the claims that it is responsible for educational inequities in the NB school system. I have seen nothing convincing that would justify axing EFI as part of the solution for fixing primary education. The evidence weighs against it. The red herring of "segregation" is simply a device to put EFI in a bad light without clarifying the fact that much of what is held against EFI is a result of easily fixable problems: lack of funding for trained staff, lack of any attempt to supply support for special needs students in the EFI program or some other creative approach to engage special needs children in the main stream without so over burdening the system that it becomes nearly dysfunctional.

Early second language training is clearly the most effective. It is also very abundantly clear that this difficult decision needs more time. An open thoughtful process that includes the most knowledgeable experts to devise a clear plan is required. In order for this to occur the decision should be delayed until next year. This decision should not be made on the basis of emotion, misinformation, politicking, or even majority opinion. It should be made on the best information available by the most capable people. The round table of 100 was a good start. Working groups should evolve from that.

In order for the minister of education to serve his duties to the people of New Brunswick he must heed the advice of the long list of experts, the provincial ombudsman, the judge, and the many other people who have the best interests of the education system at heart and take the time to get this right. Anything less would be a huge mistake.

Dear Minister Lamrock,
This record of my concerns is being sent in lieu of a proposal for I do not have the insight or experience to suggest a program that will work better than the current system. I do however have thoughts that I hope will assist you in making your decision regarding FSL changes in this province.
With all due respect, countless numbers of us have read hundreds, thousands of emails. We have taken enormous amounts of time out of lives, away from our families, studies and work, to research, think, write and understand this issue. I have had little time for my hobbies and therefore my health has suffered. You see, I am one of those grade 1 FI teachers whose future is uncertain. Normally my teaching assignment is well decided by the end of the school year. When I began my sabbatical studies in January, the research assignment that I worked on was projected toward my growth in mathematics pedagogy in grade 1 FI. My spring course research revolved around a new curriculum, that of grade 3 FI, due to the programs' elimination. At this point, there is a third possible scenario for me, that of grade 9 English and FSL. My summer course research now revolves around this possibility. It will be difficult to be prepared for teaching in the fall, although I will do my best. This issue aside, I wish to point out my concerns.
If EFI is removed, nearly no students will reach the Advanced level.
The following percentages represent EFI enrolment in grades 1-5:
* Grand Falls - 62%
* Shediac Cape - 60%
* Sackville - 50%
* Riverview - 50%
* Campbellton - 49%
* Moncton - 48%
* Salisbury - 45%
* Fredericton - 41%
It is unfair to sacrifice these groups of students due to the problems with inclusion. We cannot throw out the pedagogical advantages EFI brings over myths about its effects. This 30% of all students is just as important as those on SEP's. It's unfair to use them to fix our class composition issues. There are students who are motivated and capable of achieving a bilingual education. To deny them the opportunity to accomplish all that they're capable of is unfair. Segregation as Willms uses the term is wrong. It denotes negative emotions that have been adopted in this province without facts:

"Whether or not streaming is actually occurring and regardless of its magnitude, we are of the belief that groups adopt strategies and tactics on the basis of this perception. The outcome of the perception is, in our view, that many act to criticize aspects of the FSL programs, sometimes in the absence of sound confirming evidence, as part of a strategy to improve conditions in non-immersion classrooms." (DoE, 2000).

Denying urban areas of garbage removal, High-speed internet, ambulance services, EFI or snow removal because it's not available to rural areas would be unreasonable. We should be working on how we can offer EFI to rural areas, not take it away from urban ones.

The classroom composition problems increase with increasing grade level until grade eleven when streaming is allowed. With appropriate streaming, real learning can start and students have the opportunity to reach their own personal full potential. Eliminating EFI does not address the classroom composition problems. It only ensures that everyone from grades 1-4 will have the same composition. The true problems are being ignored. In Ontario SEP children are divided in three groups: mild, average and severe. The average are given a TA. The severe cases are removed to a separate classroom with one teacher and one TA for every six children. Fairness is about EQUITY. We are not all equal. Our talents, abilities and interests differentiate us and the purpose of education is to allow everyone the opportunity to achieve his or her potential. The problem is not EFI but excessive inclusion. And some students are being unfairly excluded from the bilingual option. Some of those on SEPs are not getting access because their needs of diagnosis and support would not be met.
The class size effect is only present in a few schools which deserve serious attention as to why.
A "one size fits all" model for inclusion would not be supported by advocates supporting students with learning disabilities or giftedness who support a range of placements (Bunch & Valeo, 1997). Even those teachers who have stated being in support of inclusion have found themselves trapped by barriers such as class size, lack of personnel, lack of parental involvement, lack of preparation (Vaughn, Schumm, Jallad, Slusher & Saumell, 1996).
In Ontario, schools may allow students who they believe "would not be able to succeed" to simply not write standardized tests. Provincial testing supports a system that neither values nor tests for inclusivity. ( Portelli et al, 2005; Portelli and Vibert, 2001; McNeil, 2000; Gillborn & Youdel, 1998). Not everyone writes PISA. Randomly chosen students of age 15 from the "regular classroom" are selected. Disabled students may be selected to write and as a result this low score will bring down NB results.
District 18 has PISA scores on par with Alberta, so district 18 shares the highest PISA scores in the country. District 18 has a high enrolment in EFI. Clearly, EFI is not the major problem. The highest PISA scores in NB are in areas where EFI enrolment is highest, French system scores (where EFI does not exist) are significantly lower than English system ones, rural school scores (where EFI is rarely offered) are significantly lower than urban ones and outcomes of EFI and non-EFI students scores are basically the same.
The Canada-wide illiteracy rate for all 16 -25 yr. olds (anglophone and francophone) is 34% according to CCL's strict definition. NB's illiteracy rate for the same group is lower than the average, 32%, and 2% better than in 2001. Saskatchewan, a comparable province, but without a linguistic minority, has a rate of 31%; Ontario's is worse than NB's, at 33%. NB's overall high rate is due to the older population: 44% of NB illiterates are 56 or older (Source: http://www.ccl-cca.ca/ccl). Our literacy rate over all is amongst the lowest in Canada, but our 16-25 year olds score ABOVE the national average, beating even Ontario. These young adults are the most recent products of our schools, and their results should be used to determine the efficacy of our system. We should focus on adult learning, rather than scrapping EFI.
The myth of "grounding in English" prevails across the province. Debunk this myth and more will choose EFI.
A blended immersion program might work. It would allow the choice of more schooling in French, or more in English. For specials, classes could be blended together.
Immersion teachers, among other professionals and non-professionals will be leaving:
http://www.frenchimmersionusa.org
http://www.frenchculture.org/spip.php?rubrique440&tout=ok
http://www.frenchculture.org/spip.php?article1085

Mister Minister, I implore you to make your decision based on the facts and I eagerly await your decision.

As a French professor and teacher, with experience teaching French as a second language to children, teenagers, young adults and adults, I feel I have some real experience which corroborates what many second language experts have ascertained, namely that learning a second language at an early age is extremely beneficial, both for the specific capacity in the second language and for general literacy. I have taught language courses at the university level for ten years, and while there are a variety of language skills and experiences, the most common complaint of students is that they did not master French at an earlier age when it would have been easier. I have taught in the public school system, while pursuing an education degree with Université de Moncton, and I have witnessed first hand the openness of young children to a second language, and their pride in mastering it. I have also seen the resistance which sets in at the middle school level. I have experience tutoring frustrated adults who are a product of the failed core French system, and I have tutored students who have struggled in the French immersion system, which has been woefully underfunded in the areas of special education. With all of this experience, I am convinced that Early French Immersion needs to be improved from the inside, not eliminated, and the province needs to make a real commitment to be bilingual, by really making immersion a strong program, open to everyone. Would it be possible to make immersion required for everyone from grade 1 to grade 3, and then to give a choice to pursue immersion, or continue in an excellent Intensive French program? And can there be a stronger tie to the French school system?

Thank you for your consideration of all my remarks.

Dear Minister Lamrock:
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to make our views known.

In reviewing the pages of comments, it is abundantly clear that, whichever side of this issue they are on, New Brunswickers care deeply about the quality of education their children receive. I appreciate your comments two weeks ago when you said that you erred when you assumed that people who opposed the Croll and Lee plan did not share your values. One of the things that has most bothered me by this entire debate is how polarizing it has become and how adversarial you made it. It does not have to be this way. Whether we support EFI (as I do) or not, we want ALL children of New Brunswick to succeed and have the best education possible.

One good thing that has come of all this is that we now have an incredibly engaged public on the topic of education. Not all ministers can say the same about their portfolios.

Here is my proposed alternative plan:

1. Introduce French using Aims in kindergarten. In schools where I live, we have seen EFI enrolment jump from 50% to 80% in just one year. Parents who see their children succeeding in French early will be more likely to enroll their children in EFI.

Unilingual parents are often very concerned that their children will not succeed in French and that they will not have the language skills to support them. This view, unfortunately, is currently reinforced by Department of Education staff and, worse, by kindergarten teachers. There needs to be an entire shift in perspective about FSL - parents need to be supported and a love of language fostered - instead of what we have now which is a wholly negative perspective on EFI. This is a signficant barrier.

French in kindergarten will ease the streaming issue because more children from diverse backgrounds will enroll in EFI - thus alleviating some of the strain on the core program.

2. EFI starting in grade one - properly resourced so children who are struggling will stay in the program. This will further allievate the strain on the core program as children who would previously have been bumped into core in grade two or three would be able to stay in EFI - making class composition more equitable.

3. Have gym and music (and art where available) be taught in a blended environment, ie where the EFI kids and core kids do these classes together. This would allow for a portion of every day for all children to be together. This will address the issue of the bringing the benefit of "peer leaders" in EFI to the core children.** The "peer leader" theory is not one which I subscribe to - but it clearly carries some weight with you, so I include # 3 to address it.

4. EFI will carry on until grade 10 - at which point, more French language courses will be offered - but will not be mandatory. By grade 10, students need to start making choices based on what path of study they will be persuing post graduation. Students need to have some flexibility in their timetable to take courses that will be most advantageous to them. If students want to persue French, that is wonderful - the courses should be available to them. But, if they want to persue science, math, English language arts or trades, they shouldn't have all of their courses tied up in French.

5. French proficiency should be tested in Grade 10 instead of Grade 12 - and all students who took EFI should be tested, not just those who volunteer. This will give a clearer and more accurate picture of EFI's effectiveness.

6. Eliminate Late French Immersion - it is the true "elite" program, with only the very brightest chilren entering it. Eliminating LFI would free up teachers, thus making # 7 more fiscally manageable.

7. Cap the number of SEP kids that can be in any class. That may mean we need to hire more teachers (although #6 will help) - but you have said repeatedly that resources are not an issue. If the number of SEP kids in any given class is capped, then the class composition issue, and thus the streaming issue, is addressed.

8. On the core side of things - teach French to all children using AIM in kingergarten through to Grade 10. At which point (in Grade 10), French would become optional. AIM has had tremendous success in other provinces - there is far more data on its success than data on Joan Netten's Intensive French.

A few of questions and points:

1. If streaming is such a concern, why does the Francophone system, where there is no streaming, have lower test scores than the Anglophone system? Could it be possible that it is some other reason that NB students are fairing badly on standardized tests?

2. If streaming is such a concern, why did District 18, which has high EFI enrolment, have one of the highest PISA scores in the country in the most recent round of testing?

3. In my view, there are two white elephants in the room in this debate that no one is talking about:

(a) our inclusion policy and (b) our urban/rural disparity issues.

I would like to make it emphatically clear: I support inclusion. I think it is incredibly important that children learn in a diverse, inclusive environment.

Having said that, it is not enough to just say "We support inclusion - all children will be taught in the same environment". Effective inclusion that works for all children -those with special needs and those without- must be properly implemented and resourced. That has not happened in NB and that is a huge reason why we are struggling. Will getting rid of EFI will really solve children with SEP's issues? No - what will solve their issues is if there were more speech therapists, trained literacy experts, etc - if they didn't have to wait 18 months for an assessment. Those issues will not be addressed by the elimination of EFI.

On the urban/rural disparity - we know that many of our rural schools are struggling. This isn't because of streaming - this is because there are less people in rural areas and the schools are having trouble staying afloat. Let's look at our rural schools and figure out ways to support them. Let's not scapegoat EFI for problems that it has nothing to do with.

Those are my submissions.

My household is well aware of the difference between EFI and LFI due to experience. My husband took EFI and I took LFI. There is no comparison EFI is far better. It could be compared to riding a bike. Something learnt at such a young age is never forgotten!!!
We now have 2 children our daughter entering grade 4EFI and a son who will be starting school in the fall. If our daughter requires help with her homework she usually turns to her dad. The vocabulary he retain and confidence in his second language is far greater then my own. Some may think that I just didn't do well in school therefore I just can't speak French as well. Not the case I was an honor student.
I guess I'm concerned that my son will not receive the same education as his sister is getting. Why can you not put money into fixing our current education system??
It doesn't make sense to delay learning French for all Students until grade 5. First of all imagine yourself getting ready to leave the comfort of your Elementary school to head to Middle school. Should we not be preparing these students for this transition?? No instead you are suggesting it would be better serve them to begin their French education at this point. It will be such a waste of 5 months. The child won't know any French at all!!! The Teachers will be spending time teach them the basics colors, numbers and how to ask to go to the bathroom!
I know in my area many people who supported the intensive French where unaware that it meant their child would be required to take French and not by choice.
Most parents I've spoken to are in shock to find out that now their choice has been taken away from them. What happens to the child who struggle or has a learning disability in English who will be forced into 5 months of French?? I think that the rush and hastiness of this decision has left a lot of people uneducated on what will take place if the changes are implemented.
I also noticed that one of the problems is the lack of people graduating with their FI certificate. Why not make in mandatory for all those who make EFI or LFI to finish their French courses to graduate.
Hopefully you'll at least delay your decision. Spend some money on more French recourses for the school. Perhaps visit the school you'll be affecting. It's not just the parents who are upset. The children are as well!! It will be their education, school and staff you are changing!

I am a Music Teacher in District Six and have been teaching there for twenty-two years. I have worked in the school system before and after the introduction of the EFI program in our elementary school and feel I have a pretty unbiased opinion of the benefits and the downfalls of the current program. I wish to share some of these today.

While there is, in fact, sometimes a difference in the type of students who chooses to enter the immersion program from those entering English, it is extreme to refer to this voluntary entry as "streaming." I am well aware of the English classes being overloaded with children with behavioural or learning problems...I teach those classes every day. However, this does not excuse the criticism of the EFI program, which, in our district, is working so well. If teachers had more adequate Special Education resources, it is my opinion that the problem would be alleviated. When integration began, there was a limit to class size and resources were allocated to each teacher to compensate for the students with learning difficulties. This support has slowly diminished, creating the overloaded system that the English teachers work in. Why must the French programs suffer as a result? The two are not related in my view! The only connection that I can see is the money required to support each of the programs. Money should not be the reason that the challenges in one area are blamed upon another!

In the schools in which I have taught, we have many excellent French Core teachers as well as Immersion teachers. I am amazed at the level of French spoken by students in both types of programs. Our core teachers speak no English during their half hour of instruction and use the "Aim Program" very effectively. However, it appears that very little attempt was made by the department to study the "best practices" of the effective core teachers in our district. Our successful teachers were never observed or given a chance to share these practices with younger, less experienced teachers in the area or other areas! Instead,we are told that the program does not work and that replacing it with a program starting in the fifth grade will be superior. How ridiculous! In order to maintain language skills, one must continually use those attained over a course of years, not in a five month block followed by little, if any, maintenance!

As for the Immersion Program, it is clear to me that the government's study measured High School students after a point in time when they had chosen to do less, if any French in order to take certain necessary university courses that were not offered in French. As a result their language skills may have been slightly less than optimal. This could have been fixed by making sure that the High School programs were given the resources to prepare the students for these university prerequisites in French. It has been my experience that students leaving Grade Five at my school have very high levels of French and should be given every opportunity to continue in this fashion.

As a personal/professional goal several years ago, I chose to improve my French skills as one of my "Professional Growth Plan" goals mandated by our District. Having grown up in Nova Scotia, I had very little French instruction throughout my schooling. The amount would probably equal what is being proposed in the current recommendations by the FSL report. As a result, I had a challenge ahead of me! In order to "jump start" the process I went to Les Iles de la Madeleine for two weeks of Immersion. Following this, I continued by attending a district sponsored weekly conversational course for teachers for several years. I also studied French while on sabbatical leave in '96 both at Glendon College in Toronto, and at Alliance Francais. I continued by reading French magazines and books, as well as listening to French radio. Even with all of these efforts, I still struggle to attain and maintain a level of working French which meets my goals. As a musician I am told that I have a very good ear for language and pick it up quite easily! However, as an adult, there is no comparison to the ease with which young children can learn a new language! Shame on us for even considering that a "bilingual" province be the only province not to offer our young students of our province this optimal chance to learn our second official language. It is embarrassing to say the least!

As a music teacher, I stand to gain from these proposed changes. Sadly though, it is not a victory to me, if our cherished French programs suffer as a result. While I have several colleagues and family members in the English system who secretly applaud the government's proposed changes, I must disagree and offer a couple of other proposals to help the so-called "broken system."

1) Continue with a French core program offered to all students starting at Grade One using the "Aim" approach. Focus on better training for the Core teachers who have been forgotten by our PD system in recent years.

2) Start Immersion in Grade Three or even Four so that students with learning difficulties have been properly identified and can choose the appropriate program.

3) Have the necessary methods and resource support in place for the EFI and English classes so that students can enter either program and be successful. This should be more easily done as the students with learning problems will have been more accurately identified by this time of entry.

4) Make it more difficult for students to drop out of one program and into another. With the proper resources in place, it should be appropriate for a student to be required to finish a given school year before any changing should be considered. Then, any change should take place only after parents, teachers, administrators and appropriate support teachers meet to discuss the best place for the student. Such changes should not be done at the "whim" of the parent which seems to be the case in some schools. It has been my experience that in schools where the administration does not make these changes quickly and without much consideration, the students often continue in, and are successful in the immersion program. This prevents the overloading of the English classes with students arriving mid-year with inappropriate language skills to succeed at that grade level! English teachers are already dealing with students from many other countries who arrive at all times of the year with limited English skills. They do not need the added burden of students too easily jumping from French into English at the first sign of a challenge, crying that there are not adequate learning resources in the EFI program! I have witnessed this excuse on the part of parents in my own school, where there is more than adequate help for immersion students with learning problems. We must be vigilant in seeing that the students put forth the effort to be successful before quickly allowing changes.

5) Ensure that English teachers are given the appropriate class size and resources needed to allow the students in their classes to be successful. This should reflect the number of students on SEPs, IEPs, learning problems, behavioural problems, and EAAL students contained therein! This should go a long way to improving those test scores about which we are all so concerned!

6) When considering and comparing test scores to those of other provinces, be sure that we are comparing "apples to apples" and not oranges. Some provinces do not factor in students with learning problems and do not have to count exempted students as "0". Is this fair? Also, many of the other provinces spend a great deal more on Education than does our province, something which must have some impact on the results.

In closing I would like to thank the provinces for allowing me, a teacher who has many years of experience, to have input in these proposed changes. My colleagues in both English and French programs are very hard working, dedicated people who want what is best for our students. We recognize that changes do need to be made, and thank the Minister for trying to alleviate some of the serious problems which exist. It is my hope that a middle ground can be found, one that does not eliminate a program of which I am particularly proud! With more careful planning, it is my belief that this can be achieved with a stronger immersion and English program being the result. As has been stated, "...the status quo is not an option" but let us make sure that the changes we make are the right ones which strike a balance which captures the many successes that currently exist!

Thank you for this time to submit my comments,

Dear Minister Lamrock and Premier Graham,

Kudos to the Graham government for its willingness to improve the public education system in New Brunswick. My up-front declaration: I am against the elimination of early French immersion. I am not an expert in the theories of second language acquisition, but I have attempted to familiarize myself with the government's recently introduced policy framework and the alternatives that have been developed over the past decade or so. (It is beyond my capacity to develop my own policy framework and associated curricula for French Second Language programs.) I am convinced that the program developed and promoted by Joseph Dicks et al. (UNB's Second Language Research Institute) is best for the advancement of bilingualism through the public education system in the province of New Brunswick.

What follows is my list of reasons against the elimination of early French immersion (in no particular order):

Many thanks for the opportunity to submit my comments.

As a come from away parent, the chance to raise my children in the only bilingual province was most attractive. To have that opportunity withdrawn is all the more disappointing. It is a major step backwards for New Brunswick to eliminate Early French Immersion just as other provinces are moving in the opposite direction. We seem to be following Newfoundland's lead, a traditionally poor province with no pretense of bilingualism. Why?
It is commendable for our government to try to improve our children's educational opportunities. This plan, however, is misguided at best. The motivation appears to be purely financial. If the aim was to improve educational outcomes, then EFI would remain and be encouraged.
If this plan was defensible on its merits, then discussion would have been allowed and input encouraged, not legislated to happen. The fact that the plan was being 'rammed through' the system suggests otherwise.
I vote no to the elimination of EFI and will vote accordingly in the next provincial election if my voice is not heard sooner.

I urge the government not to eliminate Early French Immersion. To address streaming issues, more resources need to be available to assess children in EFI, and provide SEPs, without moving the child into the English/core stream. I have seen a few children in my daughter's EFI class wait a very long time for an assessment and, after moving to English, they are assessed quite quickly. This reality is one of the causes of streaming, not the EFI program itself. Perhaps if all the children, regardless of the program they are in, are put on the same waiting list, parents would not be forced to remove a child from EFI to have them assessed.

Dear Kelly Lamrock,

I believe that eliminating early French immersion and early Core instruction would be a terrible mistake. The process you have employed to make these changes has been fraught with terrible mistakes and has demonstrated a serious lack of respect for the people you are supposed to represent.

Although I suspect that you have already made up your mind to implement your original plan, I am hopeful that you will take the comments you receive through this forum seriously and do the right thing for the future of New Brunswick. It is this faint hope that has compelled me to submit my opinion.

When I was going through school in Fredericton in the 1980's and 90's, my older brother was enrolled in EFI from first grade. His grade was the last year that first grade was offered as an entry point for several years. When it was my turn to choose Core or FI, the earliest entry point was grade 4.

My parents had received advice from a psychologist to place my brother in EFI to give him the "extra challenge" as he was advanced for his age in Kindergarten. To me, this demonstrates that the problem of streaming which you are so concerned about has less to do with the EFI program itself, and more to do with advice parents receive from professionals who propagate the stereotype that only "smart" kids can handle FI and "regular" and "dumb" kids can't.

By the time I was ready to enter 4th grade and was presented with the option to continue with the Core program or switch to FI, I was resistant to change and did not want to leave my friends, etc. Although I attended a school where FI was offered, some kids had to switch schools altogether in 4th grade to attend FI which is another deterrent for a kid to switch programs in the middle of their school years. At the age of 8, I did not understand how important French skills would become for me later in life. Therefore I chose to continue with the Core program, a decision I now regret every single day of my life. I believe if FI had been offered from first grade for my age group, my parents would have enrolled me and my life today would be very different.

To fix what is broken with our system, we need to move away from the idea that only smart kids can do FI. FI is for everyone. Kids all over the world of all capabilities, smart, dumb, mediocre, average kids can and do learn two, three or more languages from very young ages. Once we establish that almost all kids have the capability to succeed in FI, it's a no-brainer that the earliest exposure possible is going to produce the best skills. We need to look at successful second language programs in other jurisdictions and learn from them.

If you need to eliminate a program, you should keep Early FI and eliminate Late FI. By sixth grade kids who have demonstrated some difficulty in earlier grades will be doubly intimidated away from choosing FI, whereas in first grade, kids are blank slates without the baggage of previous levels of accomplishment. To me, it seems intuitive and obvious that the less of this baggage a kid has, the less likely streaming is to occur. Early FI = less streaming and Late FI = more streaming!

To ensure that FI is truly accessible to kids of all levels of capability, there absolutely must be proper support in place for kids who may struggle with any subject while going through FI. Over and over again I have heard complaints that at the first sign of trouble in any subject, the FI child is removed from the program and placed in Core. Couldn't this be the reason that Core teachers struggle with classes that have disproportionate numbers of kids on SEP's? Kids that need SEP's could succeed in FI if the same resources available in the Core program were available for them should they choose FI.

You cite the supposedly high dropout rate of EFI students from the program before grade 12. When I was in high school at FHS from '96-'99, my friends that were in FI had an extremely difficult time scheduling enough classes that were offered in French to be considered "FI" students. French classes were scheduled at times that conflicted with other French classes, meaning FI students could not enroll in all of the French classes they wanted to. Some kids found that the classes they wanted to take were just not offered in French. If they did not enroll in a certain number of FI classes, they were counted as "dropouts" from the FI program even though their French skills were enviable. Again this is an accessibility or logistics problem, not a problem with the FI option in and of itself.

I support the implementation of the Intensive program in 5th grade for Core students. In my experience the French instruction in the Core program was completely ineffectual and almost useless. The methods of instruction in the Core program need to be improved if you want Core kids to have any useful French skills. The best French skills I had in my school years were during years that my French teachers engaged in conversing with us in French and compelled us to speak French with each other during class. Unfortunately most of my French instruction was based on listening to recordings of other people speaking French, watching movies dubbed into French and memorizing conjugations of verbs, but included very little actual practice of French.

In my adult life, I have come to realize that to be successful in New Brunswick, I need to improve my French skills. This is necessary not only to be eligible for more and better jobs, but also to fully engage with and show respect for the many Francophones who are important in my life. I am saddened when my Francophone friends need to switch to English when I am in the room and when I cannot fully participate in all of the culture that makes up New Brunswick. When I cannot listen to the radio that serves a third of our population or understand conversations between Francophones about the issues that are affecting their communities, I am prevented from fully engaging in our society and understanding the issues that are important to so many of my friends and neighbours.

I am determined to vastly improve my French skills so that I can fully participate in New Brunswick life and make up for what I did not get out of our school system. Unfortunately, and ironically, I cannot do that here. My partner and I are moving to Quebec this fall to improve our skills and go to college to supplement our Bachelor degrees. I want to return to NB but the policies of your government will make that very difficult. I can say with certainty that if I ever have children, they will be enrolled in EFI. Whether that will be here in NB or somewhere else will be up to you.

It's time to do the right thing, Mr. Lamrock. Listen to the people. Make EFI work. Don't chase more young families out of the province by taking away their education choices. Remember, your job is to enact the will of the people. The people have spoken. We want EFI and we want it to be improved so all kids can benefit from it.

Dear Minister:

We believe that New Brunswick, for economic and cultural reasons, must graduate functionally bilingual graduates from its public education system. Functional, I believe is clearly understood as Intermediate Plus proficiency and above.

We further believe that, whether a fully included classroom is achievable or not, that all children entering public school age must be assessed for potential learning challenges, ideally before the end of kindergarten (where they are identifiable). In other words, that children entering grade one who should have Specialized Education/Learning Plans, that these are designed and in place with the dedicated resources within the first half of Grade 1.

Finally, we believe that these two issues of inclusion and French Second Language are discrete issues deserving of individual consideration, planning and budgeting. However, it is known that children with a variety of learning challenges can thrive in a Second Language Immersion learning environment. Therefore, we believe that planning and budgeting for inclusion policies should allow for these children to undertake their public schooling in the FSL curriculum, if it is their families' choosing.

At the close of the FSL Round Table meeting in Fredericton on July 10, 2008, you stated your "values" that you hold for NB's public education system. These were:

That NB is a bilingual province and that opportunity to strive for bilingualism must be available to all children; That children learn best in classrooms of diverse learners; and That equality must exist for small children in the public school system.

Following this, you asked participants to consider the following five questions in proposing any plan for FSL curriculum:

1. What will change parental choice?
2. What is the relative value of equality?
3. What is the right level of French to aim for?
4. If an individual came in to the Round Table with a position, what would they be willing to change?
5. How can the Minister do "this" better from here (i.e. from this point forward)?

First, with respect to your values: few NBers would disagree with the value of equality in the public school system for small or older children, and we count ourselves among those. Furthermore, we do believe in equality of opportunity to become bilingual. (It is worth noting that according to Department of Education figures, approximately 72% of children in Anglophone school districts had access to an Early French Immersion program.)

As to the value of diversity in the classroom, this is also a value that we hold dear as well. The school our children currently attend in West Saint John offers the French Immersion program which services one of the poorest neighborhoods in the province. Our children have grown up with friends in their class from a variety of backgrounds. Perhaps a way to reinforce the diversity experienced by all children would be to place early immersion programs in schools found in lower income neighborhood. In response to your questions:

1. Parental choice - it appears that parents choose a program based on a number of different reasons:
a. They want a French or English education for their children: parents who choose to have their children educated in English as opposed to French will make that choice regardless of the FSL programming and regardless of their children's abilities. I believe that most parents who choose Early French Immersion, do so because of the desire to have their children achieve the maximum second language proficiency possible
b. Class composition: I believe it is a minority who choose one program because of this reason. However, eliminating the option for effective, bilingual training (EFI) will not remedy the problems assocated with SEP numbers and class composition. Rather, the department needs to provide early and adequate intervention for children who require literacy, behaviour or other support. The department can eliminate the class composition issue through the provision of better resources and support for all parents so that the decision to place your child in core or early immersion is based purely on the choice of language instruction.
c. Concerns about child ability: as with Class composition, resourcing for children requiring intervention will drive this choice. Availability of resources regardless of program will eliminate a drive to choose a program based on where the supports exist. This is a dynamic we have witnessed first-hand in our children's classrooms. In addition, I believe that a Kindergarten entry-point for Early French Immersion or a significantly increased FSL curriculum in Kindergarten would allay a number of parental concerns/fears in this regard. Finally, adequate information to parents on second language immersion programming would also serve to reassure many parents (e.g. concerns about not being able to read their homework, etc.)

2. Value of equality - We must strive to have equality in our system. All children should have equal access to a high quality well resourced public education system. However, inequality exists in a variety of ways within our system. When schools in higher income neighborhoods can raise money to purchase resource tools (eg Smart Boards) that other schools do not have access to, we see inequality that the elimination of early immersion will not solve. Inequities exist in our system that bear no relation to the presence of the various FSL programs. In 2002-2003, New Brunswick had the lowest Per Pupil Educational Operating Expense of all the provinces and territories. This restricted resourcing leads to inequity between rural and urban schools, schools in higher income vs. lower income neighbourhoods, and between classrooms in the same school. There is no magic bullet to resolving the inequity between these schools - the socio-economic landscape in New Brunswick is not homogeneous. An adequately financed public education system, however, is a start. Your government has made significant increases in Per Pupil funding for public education in the past two budgets. Improvements resulting from these investments will not necessarily be measured overnight but they will come and these investments must continue.

3. Level of French proficiency - a majority of students graduating with Intermediate Plus is a minimum. In addition, our work-force needs significant graduates at the Advanced level as well. We have seen a number of stories in the news in the last few years ranging from complaints about provision of municipal services in French to provision of health services in some of our specialized medical facilities in French. In order to adequately staff the needs, both public and private sector, of our province, we need graduates who can step out of their education and into a profession with a significant level of second language fluency. FSL training at the professional level is expensive and takes employees away from work for significant periods of time (up to a year in the public sector programs). Even with significant time away from the Immersion program, it is my experience and understanding that the duration of professional training is dramatically reduced (if required) for Immersion graduates. In addition, in order to more adequately assess the success of FSL programming, all students should be required to present for proficiency assessment in Grade 10 and should be required to take at least maintenance course(s) in French for Grades 11 and 12.

4. What in my position has changed - our position did not change as a result of participating at the Round Table. Instead, our position has evolved significantly since March 14th, 2008. I have come to appreciate how significant the issue of children requiring early intervention for assessment and SEPs really is and how poorly equipped classrooms in all programs are to deal with the extent of the need. Dr. Joe Dicks proposed an interim measure to train teachers through summer programs to advance their certification to deal with children on SEPs. This could be executed for both English and French teachers. I have also heard of the success of the "Good for Kids" program (pilot?) which was eliminated two years ago. Measures such as these deserve serious consideration as well as a long term plan to address the overall need. Another, unrelated realization is the length of school day issue. In Dr. Doug Willms Policy Brief on FSL he rightly points out that instructional time in NB classrooms is very low and needs to be examined. Extensions to the instructional time would create the time for more extensive art, music and phys ed programs that are enriching to the educational experience.
5. How can the Minister do this better from this point forward - the consultation process as it evolved was an important first step. There are many plans and issues now on the table and the public is clearly engaged in the topic of the state of the public education system. Different models for FSL have been proposed by education experts, other academics and lay-people. Many of these deserve consideration and should be measured against good pedagogy. More promising ones should be refined with the input of experts in curriculum development. These could form the basis of a white paper on the future shape of FSL in NB. In addition, however, a similar or parallel process should also be engaged that touches on inclusion. These papers should be subject to a period of public consultation (similar to the process utilized by the Taxation system review) with a possible timeline of October to December 2008. However, in the immediate term, three things are known, the SEP issue needs immediate attention, Early French Immersion is a curriculum that we have in place and its deliverables vis-à-vis FSL proficiency are known and are high. The existing Core FSL program delivers very little. A number of pilots have been executed with Intensive French with good results. The addition of the AIMs program in the early years followed by IF could be a strong improvement over the existing Core program.

We do not believe that the status quo is good enough either. Eighteen month waiting times for assessments to determine SEPs in French immersion and Core are unacceptable. Lack of support for French immersion classrooms (TAs, M&R teachers, literacy support, etc.) is unacceptable. The low rates of presentation for FSL assessments in high school are unacceptable. Historic performance of the Core French program in terms of FSL achievement is unacceptable.

One of us has just returned from a work-related trip to North Carolina. In an unprompted conversation, a person volunteered the fact that her son in Grade 1 was enrolled in a Mandarin Immersion program in his public school. When I asked further, I was informed that in their school district four different language options (French, German, Spanish and Mandarin) were available via early immersion. And this is in a public school system.

New Brunswick is a model to the rest of the country in second language learning in the public education system. Being a role model carries the burden of demonstrating good and thorough process and due diligence. We can also show leadership in our resolve to address the inclusion issues which need desperate attention. Through sensible and responsible leadership

Early French Immersion has to be in the Education system in the only official bilingual province in Canada. Starting in kindergarten would be even better than starting in Grade One.

Give the extra resources and support needed to the teachers right from the beginning.

Doing anything less will be political downfall in 2010.

By now you certainly must realize how passionate the people are about having Early French Immersion in the Education system.

After many years of French Immersion in our province's schools we are looking at revamping our approach. The reasons thrown out are -

1) Improving our children's literacy scores: Literacy is an issue in all our schools in our province....both English and French. The reason for this is cannot be French Immersion. For general literacy to improve we need to look at the method our future teachers are being taught. or the lack of, as our university graduates do not get training in the teaching of reading. The method we have used for numerous years has been the philosophy of teaching the love of reading as opposed to teaching the necessary skills to be able to read - decoding, fluency and comprehension. For this, our universities have to shoulder the blame as they are in large part still supporting this method despite the fact that California "initiated a series of laws to reform reading education after 49% of students of college-educated parents scored "below basic"(1); Arizona's educational leaders knew after one year it was detrimental to their young people's reading abilities; and numerous researchers have written on the skills that children need to read and that it is an "acquired skill". It is encouraging to hear some school districts (but not all!?) have taken on this challenge and their teachers are now receiving training in a researched, result proven method. Our government ministers also need to be applauded for seeing the need for early intervention before our children enter school.

2) Streaming: Those with less ability or more difficulty are excluded from Early French Immersion classes. Why? Resources and training. Our sons went through French Immersion when it was in its infancy. When a Learning Disability was suspected, our son could not get an assessment because we had no psychologist proficient in both languages. No Resource Teacher was available for extra help and the teachers were lacking knowledge of Learning Disabilities as well as appropriate accommodations. Well, after 30 years, according to a Department of Education Consultant in 2004 "the likelihood of offering M&R help in French was near impossible at this point in time"(2). So is the streaming happening because we are not providing the necessary resources? Is streaming happening because of the cost of providing resources? Do we have the necessary qualified personnel to provide an inclusive Early French Immersion program.or an inclusive Late Immersion program?

3) Late Immersion as opposed to Early Immersion: Researchers tell us that very young children are like sponges and learn readily.and that learning a second language can happen easily until the child is in puberty.

4) Total Immersion in Grade 5 as proposed: What are the plans for the inclusion of children with Central Auditory Processing difficulties? What about children with hearing impairment? What about those with anxiety and behavioural disorders? Are the necessary resources going to be available? Will these children be excluded as they have been with the Early French Immersion program?

The answers to these questions need to be provided to parents who are asking these questions. They are trying to have sufficient information to make an informed decision. Not the "your son/daughter will do fine in the new system". We want parents involved..they are trying to be but are they getting straightforward answers, along with all the information that is available to the other decision makers?

1- Teaching Reading IS Rocket Science, What Expert Teachers of Reading Should Know and Be Able to Do (American Federation of Teachers, June 1999)
2- To stay or not to Stay: Factors influencing Parents of Early French Immersion Students Experiencing Learning Difficulties, 2004

I live in Florenceville where we have a successful early and late immersion program. I have four children that have been, or are moving through the education system. Only one of my children have opted for the french immersion program. The grade six entry level didn't work well for my family as at that age the children had their own opinions. As I said only one of them picked it.

The early immersion wasn't an option that I was interested in. I have been a volunteer and worked in the schools and with children for many years. Although I am very impressed with the ability of the young kids at speaking french, I am appalled at their lack of English language skills. I strongly believe that in order for New Brunswick to have the strong performers we want, we need to have a successful early years program.

What it all comes down to is more money in the early years K - 3, spent on extra help in the classrooms to get these kids reading and writing. There is always a big scramble to use up the tutoring money by March, and I don't feel it's being used effectively. Tutors or support workers should be available year round. What about a huge public plea for people to come from the community to buddy up with some kids for tutoring. It breaks my heart when I work at the high school and see the kids that can't read because they required a lot more help than they were able to receive. If we had a system in place to help these kids earlier perhaps there would be a lot less of this.

So I'm glad that you have done away with early immersion. I would like to see more effort put into eary years education. I feel french immersion would be best offered to children at the grade 4 or 5 level, after they have had a solid "English Immersion", as an enrichment program. I think it should be made available to the children that have achieved a certain standard. Elitism? No rewarding good academics. Our system pushes kids through regardless of their ability and our high achievers have no rewards for thier achievements. I think these bright kids would really benefit from a good enrichment program. Wether it's french immersion or advanced science.

I also do not think that an intense french for the grade five's is a good idea. Again, there are too many kids struggling and It is just one more thing to add to their frustration.

I liked the way I learned french in Nova Scotia. I started in Junior high - grade 7 -one class a day and in grade 10 I could drop it or keep taking it. I took it until grade 12 and I could get by.

Thank you so much for giving us the opportunity to share our thoughts. I do agree with the early immersion parents that are upset that they didn't have enough warning, I think that may have been a little rushed. I do strongly believe in a good solid early learning education - more money in the early grades. Let's give these kids a firm foundation on which to build the rest of their education. Thank you

The debate around Early French Immersion, as it was structured by the Commissioners appointed to review FSL programs has consistently failed to ask the most pertinent questions, both during the process and in their report. The public debate became, and continues to be, a negative attack campaign on the part of certain sectors of the population, including some major stakeholders in the educational system. Objective reviews of what EFI has accomplished in its over thirty-five years of existence are nowhere to be found. Instead, EFI has been accused of destroying other programs that co-exist within the system. Some of the stakeholders who so fervently desire the elimination of EFI are precisely those who have always opposed the program, including the NBTA, which has fought strenuously against immersion for other than educational reasons. I believe the opinions that fostered the repeated attacks are clearly revealed in the formulation of the survey questions attached to the report. Furthermore, it would be foolhardy to assume that because 48% of teachers believe that the current immersion FSL programs do not produce "a suitable number...[undefined] of students proficient in French" that immersion is not working; the opinion (and it is only an opinion) may have something to do with the fact that 48% of those surveyed are English program teachers. It may also have something to do with the fact no distinction was made to differentiate among early, middle or late immersion: they are assumed to be one program.
Not only has the debate failed to put forth arguments within a positive framework, many of the negative arguments used to attack EFI are spurious. For example, it is pointed out that significant numbers of immersion students do not complete the full program, dropping out before grade 12. Of course, they do, for the reason that there is no program to complete! Remember that "immersion" is not total immersion through all 12 grades. The mix in grades 9 and 10, I am told is perhaps 30% of studies in French and 70% in English. In grades 11 and 12, there is little of interest offered in French for students to choose. In Sackville for example, besides grade 11 and grade 12 French courses, there are three other items offered in French: Family Relations, Media Studies and Journalism. One must take all three of these latter courses in order to qualify for graduation in "French Immersion." Besides the fact that these areas of study are not priorities for many students, the courses often conflict with other course that are important for future post-secondary institutions. Most students of immersion find that they have already received as much benefit as they can expect from the program by the end of grade 10; and rightly so! The program thereafter goes into meltdown. And of course, significant numbers of CORE French students do not finish that program either, but in this case mainly because it is so ineffective.
Other educational problems that are in fact systemic have also been declared the "fault" of EFI: the lack of accommodation of special needs students and the so called "streaming effect" which is said to be not only based on intellectual potential but also on class distinctions. These are not problems attributable to any program, but rather to, in the first case, the refusal to provide the special needs teachers and assistants to any special needs student choosing the immersion option; in the second case, my own experience as a parent of two immersion children suggests that those parents from less advantaged socio-economic background who chose immersion did so because they recognized the successes and potential benefits of the program, and years later those who stuck with their choice were quite satisfied with the results. As for intellectual ability, there is no more reason a child with an lower average IQ cannot learn in French as well as in English; in fact within a few years of immersion most children learn better in both English and French, and so the research data has shown repeatedly.
Putting off learning a second language until the age of 9 or 10 just makes it that much harder to learn, so surely the Province must have thorough experiential data on the program scheduled to replace EFI. I have been unable to find that data; will this be yet another experiment on a grand scale like the subsequently discredited "Foundation Block"? The proposed five-month intensive French in grade 5 will encounter exactly the same problems that any second-language learning program faces, but it will also create its own unique set of problems. One of the most important will be in the area of staffing. There will simply not be enough qualified teachers in New Brunswick willing to staff the 5th grade intensive course for every child in the school system- half a year teaching immersion, then what? Surely a number of those who have specialized in early childhood education in French are not going to find the prospect of teaching nine- or ten-year olds an exciting prospect. And what of the children? Five months of nothing but French with everything else on hold is unlikely to foster achievement in other subjects.
It is important that we recognize that many of the problems with the current programs in second-language learning are in fact the same problems faced by the English language programs: learning standards that are set far too low; too many teachers who are given assignments for which they are ill prepared or in which they are uninterested; curricula that put the onus for learning on the teacher rather than on the student; repetition of the same basic material and concepts year after year so that too little progression to higher-level learning ever takes place. These are systemic problems that will not be solved by jigging the FSL programs. The Province needs to undertake a serious and thorough examination of its whole primary and secondary educational system, consulting with other Provinces that have far more successful programs in both the English and French (Immersion and non immersion) streams. We need to get our schools up to national standards in all areas, and a move to universal "intensive French" will not contribute to achieving that goal.
Let's get out into Ontario, Alberta and BC to find out what they are doing that works so much better than what we do. And let's not be the only Province in the country (besides Quebec) not to offer early French immersion, the best chance any child has to becoming proficient in French. In fact, how can it be so bad for New Brunswick when it is recognized across the country as being so good for other Provinces?

I urge the government to reconsider their decision to eliminate Early French Immersion in the manner proposed so hastily this year. We all agree that there are many challenges and concerns about the current achievement levels of our students, and the need to address these if we are to produce literate, employable graduates. The elimination of EFI does not appear to be the answer, rather, a knee jerk reaction to removing a "scapegoat" program. There have been many eloquent submissions outlining the reasons why this decision is flawed based on inaccurate interpretation of data so I will not waste your time by repeating them. I do urge those making critical decisions affecting our future workforce not to finalize such a serious matter in such a hurried way, and not to allow the biased feelings of some individuals to sway the future of an entire generation. This decision, once made, will be impossible to reverse, and it will be a tragedy when it becomes apparent we have killed off something which wasn't evil after all, without addressing the true problems. I thank you for your consideration.

As a mother of three in the New Brunswick public education system, I oppose the proposed termination of Early French Immersion (EFI). I believe this successful program is being used as a scapegoat for the shortcomings of the system as a whole.

It is unfortunate that there has been such a rush to action on this matter. This mad scramble will surely result in missed opportunities and a lack of preparation that will adversely affect our students and teachers. Furthermore, once change is implemented, it will no doubt be locked in place for many years to come. I must say that I have been encouraged in recent weeks by the more conciliatory and thoughtful tone of the Minister of Education. Perhaps there is still room and time for compromise and a better plan.

Rather than 8 weeks of summer, just imagine what could be accomplished in one year.

I understand changing your position or even delaying the changes to further consider ideas and concepts from education experts may appear in the political world as flip flopping on the issue if you so choose to take that stance on August 5th. I feel taking such a stance and allowing for proper consultation with experts in the field of education would be seen as a positive among voters regardless of their opinion on this issue. The manner in which these changes have been introduced has blindsided many. The recent conference held with various experts does not count as proper consultation and I only hope private closed door meetings are being held with these experts in the pursuit of creating an education program that will address the many concerns brought forward publicly by various groups and organizations or within the comments submitted on this forum.

Before submitting my thoughts on the subject I attended the information session held at the Fredericton High School in order to better understand the proposed plan. After speaking with the individuals at the session and taking various documents home I am not comfortable with what has been proposed.

First of all, at the risk of misquoting you I believe you feel these changes will fix the streaming issue in our schools. Based on your proposal I believe it is evident you have simply delayed the streaming issues until Grade 5/6. Secondly, the problem is not Early French Immersion (EFI). The EFI program is not to blame for classroom sizes, SEP's, extra help and behaviour problems. Years of not providing the proper resources and cutbacks are to blame. Changing the program (aka elimination EFI) will not make these issues disappear nor will it create a surge in test scores unless of course you remove the SEP results or those who failed to attend class that day to take the test. All the issues in both programs but more specifically the Core program need to be examined and a plan needs to be put in place to address them once and for all. It appears that instead of addressing these issues the Government is trying to fix it by changing the curriculum and removing a program that works and one that so many value and want for their children.

As far as suggestions my first one would be to delay any changes until 2009. I commend you for tackling such a sensitive subject but this must be done correctly the first time. And by doing it right and engaging the right people everyone involved can be sure that happens. Also, keeping the parents and children guessing one month until the start of the school year is not fair.

1. As mentioned previously, delay the changes and form a working group to put the best plan together is the best solution to all of this.

2. Learning a second language should start when a child is young and if you are truly committed on producing more bilingual graduates then all students provincially should have 40% French and 60% English taught to them from Grade 1 to Grade 4. At that time your proposed plan (Grade 5) would take effect and students would then choose to stay in Late Immersion or Post Intensive. Having all students start learning both languages at a younger age gives everyone a solid foundation to build from while learning such critical subjects like Math which would be taught in English. Once all students complete Grade 5, the parent and the student can gauge their success as well as their interest in pursuing a particular level of French proficiency and decide on the appropriate program. Streaming will still occur however the difference between the two groups would not be as distinct when i comes to language. Unfortunately, like your plan this does not provide families with any choice until after Grade 5. Also, some families may not want their child to learn that much French. But like your plan the opposite is true as some families would much rather have their child learn French during those years.

I think it's time the Government not only spend money on education but spend it wisely. If the money spent on the Croll-Lee report was put to better use we may not be in his embarrassing predicament. I am confident if done correctly New Brunswick could be a leader in education. However the proposed plan in its current state appears to be a big step backwards.

I appreciate the opportunity to share my thoughts. I look forward to August 5th.

I feel that because NB is a bilingual province, the education system should provide the opportunity for children of this province to become fluently bilingual.

There is no proof that eliminating EFI will solve the inclusion and literacy problems in our schools. In fact, it could be argued that literacy skills will decrease, since it has been proven that second language acquisition increases first language literacy. As for inclusion, the number of children on SEPs will not decrease dramatically enough to make any real difference in the Core classes.

Children in every other province in Canada will have a better opportunity to graduate bilingual than those in Canada's only bilingual province. We are already losing people to other provinces for employment reasons; without the benefit of being bilingual, our young people may no longer even have a choice of staying in NB to work. Where will we find bilingual workers in the coming years? Will we be looking to other provinces to provide for our bilingual workforce?

Relying on post-secondary FSL instruction to make Anglophones bilingual, is a huge step backward, when the current public system produces bilingual graduates.

Keeping EFI, and strengthing the program to provide greater access, is the most responsible thing to do, if New Brunswick truly cares about producing graduates that are functionally bilingual.

New Brunswick should strive for excellence in FSL education. With commitment and creativity on the part of educational administrators, teachers, and parents' groups across the province, it ought to be possible for more than half of all children of English-speaking families to achieve an Advanced or Advanced Plus level of proficiency in French. For this to happen, immersion programs should begin in kindergarten and be made accessible to students of all abilities. There is also great potential for increasing interaction among students in primarily francophone and primarily anglophone regions of the province - taking language education out of the artificial confines of the classroom.

I began to learn French in New Brunswick schools in Grade 5 or 6, and eventually earned a graduate degree from a French university. But my facility in the language will never approach that of my two children, who are products of early immersion programs. One of them has recently, and seemingly effortlessly, acquired an excellent command of Spanish. Without her strong foundation in second language-learning, it is hard to see how this could have happened.

Over the course of my professional career as a public servant in New Brunswick, I have often found myself in mixed French-English linguistic groups. The language of communication in these situations has invariably been English, as all of the Acadians, but few of the anglophones, have been bilingual. Ten to 15 years from now, it would be great if most young New Brunswickers from English-speaking backgrounds could hold their own in French in a much more truly bilingual milieu.

I have been thinking about this letter for a long time, I am embarrassed to say I live in New Brunswick- the only bilingual Province in Canada. If we were not a bilingual Province it would not be so upsetting. I am not in favor of eliminating EFI. I will try to list a few points.

1. Children are little sponges, they soak so much information at this age, to start in grade 6 will be too late

2. They talk about streamlining- well how many children do you think there will be in late Immersion only the chosen few who will have what it takes, then there will be streamlining all over again

3. In grade 6, children are becoming more social and doing things without their parents, have crushes on each other; their attention span is not what it would be in grade 1

4. I have spoken to late Immersion teachers from High School- they say there is a big difference in the early and late Immersion children, the late Immersion children don't have the fluency, how could they? They are expected to be at the same level as the early kids when they are in grade 8. Talk about pressure

5. O course these Teachers are not able to speak out for lose of their jobs!

6 What will happen to these young FI Teachers, they will move to other provinces when they loose their jobs here

7 I am not saying the FI program is perfect, they are a lot of places where improvement is needed ex: in High School it should be mandatory for them to continue in French studies, not given the chance to drop it. How can they expect to write an exam to show the level of French they are at upon graduating?

8 I want my children to be bilingual, I want them to have doors open to them not are not open for me. You can't even get a job here at our hospital in the laundry or kitchen without being bilingual, x-ray, nursing, clerical and the list goes on

9 Is this what we want for our bilingual province, we have worked to try to bring the English and French together, this will divide us more because the English families will not be able to give their children the opportunity to learn French at a young age. And this is the age when they can learn it the easiest!!

10 I could probably talk for a long time on this subject but will try to cut it off now. Don't eliminate EFI, yes it needs work to iron out some problems, but don't let our children down buy taking away EFI.

just took a second look at the empployees assigned to various areas in teh English Department of Education - did you know that there are currently zero (0) employees assigned to French and a second language and 1 employee responsible for french immersion and spanish.

Am I reading to much into this or does everyone else see a lack of importance by this department on french - just for the record - French immersion and Early french immersion was started in NB english schools by principals and teachers - not by the department!

I have been giving your request for submissions of alternative ideas to Croll/Lee quite a lot of thought since you announced the extended consultation. I am not expert in FSL learning nor do I have any expertise in the field of education. I really feel it is up to the experts in these fields to develop a sound detailed plan that will achieve the expectations of parents and give all children of New Brunswick a solid foundation for whatever future they may desire.

My expectation as a parent living in an officially bilingual province is for my children to be on an equal footing with their francophone neighbours in their ability to communicate effectively and also for employment. The only way this can be done is for them to achieve an advanced level of proficiency in their 2nd language. I have read many reports, articles, letters and commentary on this in last few months and I have come to the conclusion that the experts all concur the best way to achieve advanced level of proficiency is to start teaching them early. Starting second language education early according to these experts also has a positive affect on a students 1st language abilities.

It does seem that starting children early in 2nd language is better this however evidently causes streaming. I however believe that unless you have only one system for all students for the duration of their schooling you are going to have streaming. It is also my belief that the later you start 2nd language training the more pronounced that streaming will be. As I seriously doubt a plan that would have all Anglophone children in NB reach an advanced level of proficiency in French is even being considered I think we will have to live with some level of streaming. Streaming can be minimized however by education of parents of the benefits of learning a 2nd language early. Parents can be encouraged to place their children in an early program by introducing their children to French in level K for a grade one entry or grade k-2 for a grade 3 entry. (As I understand the research to achieve Advanced Proficiency this is the latest you would start) The same resources afforded to the English program need to be put into the immersion program.

Regarding the physical education, arts and music I am not sure I see why these subjects are a topic in a debate on FSL however I do understand and see the importance of them. An easy answer to this is to increase the school day by 30 min. This will give ample time in the school day to increase instruction time in all of these subjects.

In summary I believe streaming is unavoidable unless you are going to implement one program for all, which would mean a choice between immersion for all or no effective FSL training for all. I believe an early start is better. K is best but not later than grade 3. Streaming can be minimized. There are many experts in the field of 2nd language education that have many idea on how to minimize streaming you need to consult with them and follow though on their recommendations. Your decision on Aug 5th will affect the children of NB for many years to come. Please take the time to study all the options put forth to you by the experts and parents for the future of NB depends on it.

We moved to NB from BC two years ago, my spouse is RCMP and were elated to move back to NB. Fast forward to now, we certainly would have rethought the decision. Both of our children are in EFI, one in grade 4 and one in grade 7. I guess I am in a good position as both of my children are "grandfathered" in but I have a fear that my youngest will be left behind with resources, etc. I have seen how two provinces do the EFI programs and I thought that NB was far better than BC.

I will say that I do feel that the DOE does need to make changes. First off, social advancement, this alone would cut down on the SEPs in the elementary school system. If a child is not ready to move onto the next grade, I don't think most parents would object to "hold them back" one year in elementary years. It is a far better situation than being behind in middle school and were there is more of a stigma. Secondly is more resources for all programs, but I can speak from the EFI program. At my child's school there is one Literacy teacher that is shared among other schools in the district. She comes to our school 2-3 times/year. This alone is not enough, many children are removed from the program by their parents because they feel helpless and cannot afford tutors after school. This year alone two children just in my neighbourhood were transferred over to English in grade 2 and grade 3. Where does that now leave the English teacher, not in a very good position because they now have to play catch up to get these children up to their level in English.

I know with eliminating the EFI program that some parents will be quite happy, what I don't think people realize is that now with merging the two programs, we will see fewer resources and more splits.

With implementing the IF program I am quite curious how will it be offered to the areas that have never had EFI due to numbers. This will certainly be the same with the IF program. What will your response be to those parents that are so excited to see this program coming only to be told later that the "numbers are not there" and the DOE cannot justify the cost. I know places like Campobello and Grand Manan, on a good day, is hard to staff those schools, let alone a couple of FSL teachers.

With the IF program, there were students that did the pilot program at a school in our district, only to be told at the end of the year that they should not go the LFI, how is this helping? I also feel that parents do need a choice in this matter as to whether or not they want to enrol their children in this program, special needs children for example. I know some special needs children can learn a second language, but not all can. What measures have been put into place in regards to this?

I do support change, but I feel elimating the EFI program is a hugh mistake. The schools need more resources, less SEPs (social advancement backlash), smaller classroom sizes and most of all, not to lose the countless number of gifted teachers that will move to other provinces. We need to keep residents in NB, not push them away.

I hope the Canadian Armed Forces are being considered as they don't have much say in being transferred to NB. What happens to the children that have only been in EFI and they move to NB in grade 2 or 3, what will you do with them. What about in the IF in grade 5, will they just sit there and twiddle their thumbs out of boredom? Please think about these families as they sacrafice enough for Canada as is.

Please reconsider your decision in the elimation of the EFI and the forcing of the IF program.