Letter of the day | Experts not associated with N.B. decision
To The Editor:
The following letter has been sent to the Hon. Kelly Lamrock, Minister of Education:
Dear Minister,
We are writing with respect to the announcement made on March 14 about changes to French second-language programs in the province. It has been suggested that we have been involved in proposing these changes.
It is true that we support the implementation of Intensive French as a means of improving core French results. However, our work in New Brunswick has been exclusively with the core French program. We have not been involved in any discussions about the Early Immersion program nor have we been consulted by the government about the decision to abolish it. The first indication that we had from the government of this plan was the announcement in the legislature last Friday. We feel that it is important to make this point.
We would like to make our position clear. Intensive French (IF) was created specifically to improve the core French program. In the other seven provinces and two territories where it is being piloted, it is being used only for this purpose. In Newfoundland and Labrador where it has official status as an alternate program, it has not been considered as a replacement for Early Immersion.
We also support Intensive French as a means to increasing enrolment in immersion programs. In all the provinces where Intensive French has been implemented, including here in New Brunswick, increased enrolment in late immersion has occurred.
In Newfoundland and Labrador, after the implementation of Intensive French, enrolment in late immersion increased by approximately 35 per cent; early French immersion enrolment also increased.
As the designers of the Intensive French program, we are happy to work with the Department of Education to implement the program successfully as an improvement to the core French program. However, we wish to make it clear that we were not associated with the government's decision to eliminate Early French Immersion.
Joan Netten,
C.M., Ph.D.,
Memorial University,
St. John's, Nfld.,
Claude Germain, Ph. D,
Université du Quebec
à Montreal
More Opinion
Search Articles
More CE Network Sites & Partners:
Comments (22)
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.
Lamrock just lost his last political leg to stand on. What the hell is he thinking??? It must seem more than obvious to everyone now that his report is a joke and was only ever intended to support a unilateral decision that he had already made months ago. Lamorck must resign and Graham had better step up here and be heard soon or he's going to go down with his Minister.
To the parents who have been saying all along that the FSL report was bogus... I'm sorry I ever doubted you and I will most certainly never believe anything that comes out of Kelly Lamrock's mouth again!! Political games at their worst. No politician should ever gamble with the future of our children. Shame on you Mr. Lamrock.
The present government does appear to have had its agenda and saw to it that a report -
any report - fit into that agenda, albeit leaving them more than a little bit suspect now.
Like Thoreau said, some things are conspicuous, such as finding a trout in the milk!
assessments of this situation.
The present government had its agenda, and it commissioned
a report - any report - that would be consistent with that agenda, albeit something
which now shows itself as highly suspect.
Like Thoreau said, "Some things are conspicuous, such as finding a trout in the milk!"
There is a middle way to resolve this problem. Perhaps setting up 'immersion' schools in each district, rather than trying to implement the program in every neighbourhood school would be a viable course of action. Then parents who would choose the Immersion program, either Early or Late, could send their children to the 'immersion' schools. Parents who choose to have their children educated in English, could send their children to 'core' schools, where they could choose either an 'entirely English' program, or the proposed 'intensive' core program. There would likley be less streaming, since only certain schools would be 'immersion' schools, rather than every neighbourhood school as it is now, so only parents and students truly committed to the immersion program would opt for the extra bussing that would surely be involved.
Now that we have begun to hear from the EXPERTS, the issue of Leadership in Government needs to be addressed. THIS PROVINCE NEEDS LEADERSHIP at the level of the Ministry of Education. Clearly Lamrock has demonstrated that he is not able to provide the leadership required to resolve EFI problems.
KELLY LAMROCK MUST STEP DOWN NOW!!! The Premier needs to demonstrate leadership and denounce the grave errors made by the Lamrock and order that he step down.
I also believe that we need to scrap the Croll-Lee report (which I have read; it is available at http://www.gnb.ca/0000/publications/comm/FSL%20Report.pdf). See for yourself how this documents is flawed.
Now that some information from EFI EXPERTS is being made available to the public, the next step should be Public Consultations.
The Citizenry needs to be adequately informed and given the opportunity to make sound decisions. It is the right of every parent or taxpayer!
She should be severely reprimanded (if not fired) by her School Administration, her District and by her Professional Association. As a High School Teacher and Department Head, it is not her role to be making the type of public declarations that she has made. Furthermore, as a role model to youth, her ACTIONS are highly irresponsible.
As a private citizen, however, the matter is entirely different. She can say just about anything.
The problem lies in the fact that she used her Professional Status as a Public School Teacher to issue public declarations. This is in violation of her profession's Code of Ethics.
Any other teacher in the Public System would (and should) be reprimanded for such actions. Nancy Pipes should not be placed above anyone else.