Letters
World requires more languages
To The Editor:
Having worked all over the world with teams from many countries, I have come to realize that speaking more than one language was almost a given with the majority of those I met and worked with, most could speak three languages and it was not uncommon to hear some speak four.
While in Switzerland most of my teammates spoke German, French and English, while in Paris I heard the same with a few even speaking Flemish as well.
My project in Brazil brought together a multinational team which could speak Portuguese, Spanish, English and a few even spoke French without batting an eye . . . and I thought I had an advantage by being bilingual!
I have yet to hear of anyone who spoke several languages regret the time spent learning other languages or felt they were less knowledgeable in general because of it, however I have often heard some of my peers regret not taking advantage of the opportunity to learn a second language . . . not so that they could work across the world but just so that they could speak with their neighbour!
Joanne LeBlanc Skyrie,
Grand Barachois
Why remove the parental choice?
To The Editor:
I am writing to voice my concern, as well as overwhelming disappointment and anger, over the education minister's decision to slash the Early French Immersion program in New Brunswick.
I am an anglophone, who cannot speak or understand French, and am the mother of four children. My eldest son is currently in Grade 3 in Early Immersion. His French is amazing. He speaks beautifully. My second son is in Kindergarten and was supposed to be entering into Early Immersion in September (he was very excited to start learning French like his older brother).
However, for some reason, Mr. Lamrock made a lightning quick decision based on what appears to be a seriously flawed report and cut Early Immersion. As a taxpayer, and a once loyal Liberal supporter, I would like some answers.
First, instead of hastily scrapping a program that has been established for 30 years, why not put some resources into making the program better. Second, regarding streaming, why not again make our existing programs better by offering more resources to the Early Immersion program?
This way children with learning disabilities can have the same opportunity to learn French. The education minister's answer -- cut Early Immersion means no streaming.
Third, as the only official bilingual province, does it make sense to take away our option of Early Immersion? It seems absurd.
Fourth, why weren't we the public consulted on this very important issue? Why were we not even asked how we felt about it? Do we not live in a democracy? Something doesn't add up in this scenario. However I'm sure if I searched a little deeper I would find that it comes back to the bottom line.
This move by Mr.Lamrock seems completely contradictory to the message I heard in the speech he was giving in Sackville last September. Children at an early age are desperate for knowledge, he says, and love to learn. And because of that passion, they soak up that knowledge with great speed and ability.
So finally, why did Mr. Lamrock take this early learning opportunity away from our children?
Christine O'Neal,
Sackville
Change won't benefit students
To The Editor:
This open letter has also been sent to Mr. Kelly Lamrock, Minister of Education:
Mr. Lamrock, It is with great disappointment that I have read that you have eliminated all French education, especially French Immersion, from the elementary English school system here in New Brunswick.
It really grieves me that my youngest child will not have the same opportunities to live, work, and study in New Brunswick as his three older siblings, who are in the Early French Immersion program. I fear that your Intensive French and Late Immersion program is doomed to fail our children. There are several reasons why I feel this way.
First, Early Immersion is an easier way for children to learn in French, than Late Immersion. In Grade 1, when children are just learning to read, they are reading picture books, with just a few words per page, and a picture to help them understand what the words mean and to help them understand the context of the story.
It is also easy for English parents to help their children at this level. It is an easy, enjoyable way to pick up a second language, for the parent as well as the child.
In Grade 6 children are reading chapter books, with no pictures, they are expected to write simple poetry, give speeches, and other tasks that require some degree of fluency in a language. I do not believe that students can achieve this level of fluency in French in just 20 weeks, which is what you are proposing with a Grade 6 immersion in French. Try studying German for 20 weeks, then read a book in German, and write a book report. It will not be done well with just 20 weeks of instruction.
Secondly, by the time children reach the age of 11 or 12, they have an opinion of their own. If they perceive that they will have to work harder in French immersion than they do in English, which they will have to do, then they will not want to go into French immersion.
We as parents can try to force our children into French immersion for their own good, but come Christmas when parents and children are both throwing up their hands in frustration because the kids just don't get it, and the English parents can't help them, we are going to be looking to put our kids back into the English program. You can try to say that we are not allowed to go back, but we know our rights, and our children have a right to be educated in their native tongue.
Thirdly, any children who are born of at least one French parent will now be placed in a French school instead of an English one because that is now the only early French immersion option. Unfortunately, we won't all qualify for that program anymore.
I personally don't see this as a benefit because the money goes where the kids go. The French school district knows this; they already have advertisements on English television channels trying to persuade children of at least one French parent into the French school system. This could result in a weakening of the entire English school system.
Finally, Mr Lamrock, you yourself identified streaming as one of the reasons for eliminating Early French Immersion. You stated that parents were putting their children in French Immersion because they were trying to avoid putting their children in the English classes where inclusion was causing a problem with the learning environment.
Parents with children who have disabilities tend not to put their kids in French Immersion. That only makes sense, if your child is having trouble in English why compound their problems by trying to give them instruction in French. Since you have identified inclusion as a problem in the English school system, how are you going to fix it?
If the objective really is to have 70 per cent of English students graduate with an intermediate level of proficiency in French, then this is not the way to get there. One question I would like an answer to is this. How much money does the Department of Education expect to save over the next five years by cutting the Early Immersion program? With the resulting elimination of teaching positions, and a reduction in resource needs, my guess is that it will be a substantial amount.
Will the English students in our province really benefit in any way from this? Not at all.
Susan Linkletter,
Salisbury
Search Articles
More CE Network Sites & Partners:
Comments (18)
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.
Did you all notice the colourful propaganda on your left? I wonder how much that's taking out of our tax dollars?
The "pro immersion" posters here seem to really want their children speaking french instead of being able to do Math, understand science, and God forbid, put together a coherent paper in either language.
These skills are lacking,, and it is proven over and over. Last in MAth, Science, and literacy skills. LAST in the country!!
But as long as they can speak french, we're supposed to be proud?
My condolences to you all.
In response to Joanne LeBlanc Skyrie's comment "I have often heard some of my peers regret not taking advantage of the opportunity to learn a second language . . . not so that they could work across the world but just so that they could speak with their neighbour!"
You can go on the internet right now and speak to any of the millions of people from Brazil, Sweden, India, Korea, Germany, Phillipines and a hundred other countries who are speaking to each other and you, in English. When a businessman in India speaks to a businessman in China, they don't spend thousands of dollars and hours learning each other's language, they speak English.
The problem is 'too much is expected' of French at the expense of major subjects such as Math, Science, etc. By-in-large, the world operates in English for such subjects so we should be giving our students the exacting benefits of strong instruction in such subjects. Even French universities deal in English in such subjects. Languages are great; but not great enough to cause mayhem in other much more important subjects!!
My wife is French, 2 of 3 children are schooled bilingual that they can do business while I wish I could converse in my wife's mother tongue. Many courses I did take but just couldn't pick it up.
in the past six decades. That's 10,000 millions. That makes expenditures for learning a second
language seem paltry by comparison.
There is misrepresentation and hostility in the above comments. Why not read the following
compilation by Allison J. Menard: http://www.cpfnb.com/reports/BeyondHysteria.pdf
There is something wrong in the state of Denmark. And the perpetrators are possibly
organized, but mostly reacting from a perspective of fear, not of facts.
What some want to do is turn back the clock to when francophones had to change their family
names to gain employment. Francophones, meanwhile, are said to not be mastering English,
based on what?
How many naysayers speak French at all? Typically, we'd be led to believe that people simply don't have an ear for French. Wonder how Europeans would react to reading that, seeing how they master half a dozen languages.