Immersion debate misses the point
Few issues have sparked such widespread public debate as the provincial government's announced changes to its French Immersion programs.
This newspaper received no fewer than 50 letters to the editor over the Easter Weekend from parents, most of whom are outraged by Education Minister Kelly Lamrock's decision. Few issues in recent memory have resulted in that volume of letters and this passionate a debate.
Do the letter-writers represent a true cross-section of the public or does the so-called 'silent majority' exist who actually favour Lamrock's changes? If the minister is correct that he has the support of the majority of parents, he has to start doing a better job of explaining why he made the decision, and what it will mean to new students.
Early Immersion starting in Grade 1 does represent the best chance to teach English-language students the second language. No one can debate that.
But supporters of Early Immersion must also understand that Lamrock's changes are based on two other facts -- we cannot make changes to Immersion in isolation -- our entire education system needs to be reviewed -- and we must ensure all students have a chance to learn to the best of their abilities.
The current system, for all of its accomplishments in Early Immersion, simply doesn't meet either standard.
Search Articles
More CE Network Sites & Partners:
Comments (40)
All comments are subject to the site Terms of Use. For a full commenting tutorial click here.
Our editorial team relies on filtering technology and our visitor community to identify inappropriate comments. In the event that a site user has submitted offensive content that has evaded our filter, please select the option to Flag As Inappropriate presented within the comment. Thank you for helping to keep this site clean.
What we are advocating is giving parents a choice by re-instating early immersion, replacing or enhancing the Core French program with Intensive French and also leaving Late French Immersion as is as an option for those coming out of the Intensive program. As explained by the experst who created the Intensive French program, it was NEVER designed to replace EFI Lamrock is doing.
How is that missing the point?
Ask them what they watch on TV. It ain't Radio Canada or Les Plouf but is more likely Lost, How I Met Your Mother, 24, CSI, Law and Order, etc.
Give yer head a shake if you think francophones live separate and apart from anglophone culture in this province.
We don't need French immersion; early or intensive, we only need to immerse our kids in French through the media. So how about we teach our kids how to speak French by turning on Luc et Luc, Roch Voisine, Celine Dion and Annie Brocolie. It seems as though you think this is a sufficient means; to immerse children in a language via the media, to a sufficient degree that mastery of a second language will be attained.
Very good. Do you really think that the English these French kids are speaking is any where near the proficieny we expect from English kids in speaking French?
We differ with the Minister however in that we believe EFI is a crucial component in this endeavour. As Drs. Netten and Germaine have now stated publicly, Intensive French was never designed to replace EFI but rather to support and enhance the Core problem. All the majority of us are asking is for EFI to be reinstated, replace or enhance Core with intensive French and maintain the stance to make French mandatory up to grade 12. THAT plan will get you far closer to 70% bilingual grads than Lamrock's current plan.
And another thing... one of the most troubling things to come out of this for me is to see the tactics being employed by the Minister to try and quiet opposition.
As a life-long Liberal voter and a strong supporter of Mr. Graham in the last election, I am APPALLED at being painted as some hysterical and emotional sheep following a high powered lobby group by the nose in my objection to Mr. Lamrock, and by default, Mr Graham's plan for EFI.
I am a free thinker and I do not follow anybody without having all the facts. And therein lies the problem, the facts are on OUR side and Mr. Lamrock knows it. His only recourse is to admit he may have made a mistake and re-open the decision OR, use George Bush-style tactics and accuse his detractors of being "with the enemy". Shame on Mr. Lamrock for these bullying tactics and shame on Shawn Graham for not having the courage to lend his voice to this debate. His silence speaks volumes as will the votes of many long-time Liberals in the next election.
Up to a a couple of weeks ago, I would rather cut off my own arm than vote Conservative. Shawn Graham has now given me no choice but to vote PC in the next election because I need both of my arms for work. It is a sad, sad time for the New Brunswick Liberal Party, all because of one bullheaded politician who cannot stand being told he might have made a mistake.
http://www.caslt.org/pdf/15-Netten-Germain-CJAL-ACLA-Halifax-2005-rev-07.PDF