Letters | Early immersion producing best results
An excerpt of a letter to Kelly Lamrock.
We are writing with our concerns about the elimination of the Early French Immersion program.
As the parents of a child in Grade 2 Early French Immersion and two younger children, we are disappointed and concerned that you would eliminate this option in favour of exclusively starting French language training at an older age.
By eliminating the EFI program, you are throwing away the program producing the best French language outcomes. Your report clearly points to problems in the core program and your determination to fix these problems is overdue. These improvements, however, should not be accomplished by retooling the entire system towards a goal of mediocrity.
The decision to eliminate EFI is short sighted and wrong. Every other province offers Early French Immersion. In the days of improving economy and the government's plan to repatriate New Brunswickers and attract new professionals, you are making it impossible for parents of children already in Early French Immersion to move to the province.
There are problems with our educational system, problems that will require creativity, improved resources, financial support and patience.
We think the changes you have proposed will improve the core program and agree it may encourage enrolment in late immersion programs. However, eliminating EFI is not part of that progressive solution. How can eliminating the program improve overall French language outcomes?
Unfortunately, the outcome measurements will be far down the road when New Brunswickers will realize what a mistake you have made.
JANE & JAMES ASHFIELD
Rothesay
Immersion decision was the right one
I have to respond to the media's attention that the elimination of early immersion has brought today. On the CBC home page I am reading words like embarrassing, and outrageous, and how the opposition has spoken about whether it violates the charter of rights and freedom in N.B.
Since we're dead last in the country for education, and since early immersion has proven not to assist students, how it creates a two-tier system in the elementary schools now, and how no one else on the continent has it as a requirement, I say thank you Mr. Lamrock.
Now hopefully we can get past petty politics, and start educating our children for the global economy.
Not the economy that exists in the eyes of a few small focused people looking for votes in their riding.
RODNEY CHAISSON
Rothesay
Allow cigarette butt receptacles in city
The recent comments about street repairs and street cleanliness raises a serious problem. I took it from the newspaper that the city staff were concerned about keeping the streets clean and sweeping off the sand, basically so the tourists would find a clean city.
This might sound fine but there is a serious problem and that is cigarette butts. The non-smoking bylaws do not work and will not prohibit smoking. Yet, the city is discouraging people who want to place cigarettes refuse containers in front of their buildings because it interferes by projecting out and it is not historic looking.
There are enough cigarette butts and refuse on the streets and certainly this is not attractive.
I hope the city would change its rules and encouragement given so that the property owners could place a cigarette refuse contain on their property in a usable location.
SAMANTHA SUTTON
Saint John
Nuclear is not clean or green
Anyone who thinks nuclear is the answer to global warming, should read on.
Nuclear energy starts with uranium mining which is one of the most dangerous elements to life. Elliot Lake, Sask., has an environmental disaster on its hands. The uranium leftovers, which are more radioactive than the uranium itself, have a half-life of 80,000 years.
The residents in Elliot Lake have been told not to consume deer, moose or eat the local vegetation. Uranium exploration and mining also result in tons of carbon dioxide.
The years of work to build a reactor also produces tons of CO2.
About five years ago, it was recognized that tritium, a radioactive hydrogen isotope with a half-life of 12 years, is a major player in childhood cancers like leukemia. Our Candu reactors are large emitters of tritium.
Our government is trying to pass 1977 nuclear emission standards for which 7,000ppm of tritium per litre of water is OK. In California, the maximum allowable level for tritium in one litre of water is 15ppm. The highest allowable level in the States is 100ppm.
The nuclear industry has cost us billions. Keith Tindel of Shediac remarked how France has 90 per cent nuclear energy.
Their children will be left with a huge clean-up bill when these reactors have to be decommissioned.
Our politicians are gambling with our lives and the future of our children. Renewable energy is the only safe, clean and affordable way.
Renewable energy is what I want my children and grandchildren to inherit.
MIKE MILLIGAN
Beausejour Green Party Candidate
Conservatives have climate policies
In his letter March 17, Professor Rod Hill gives good, constructive advice about where interested citizens can go to look for objective information about long-run temperature changes (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, www.ipcc.ch).
The letter writer also gives a good summary of accepted climate change theory.
Unfortunately, Professor Rod Hill gives out erroneous information about Prime Minster Harper's current views on climate change.
He mistakenly links Prime Minister Harper to the Canadian Tax Federation.
However, Stephen Harper headed up the National Citizens' Coalition, not the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.
Professor Hill leaves readers with the impression that the federal Conservative government does not believe climate change is brought about by increases in greenhouse gas (GHG). Yet the current Environment Canada website (www.ec.gc.ca), on its home page, explicitly outlines current federal policy on GHG and climate change.
The policy is entitled "Turning the Corner." The government's announcement on April 26 called for a carbon emissions trading market and a market price for carbon.
A more recent announcement calls for a regulatory framework for industry, and for oil sands and electricity production. The latter proposal calls for carbon capture and a banning of new dirty coal plants.
Rod Hill, as a university professor and NDP supporter, may agree or disagree with some (or all) of the federal proposals to combat GHG emissions.
He may also have different ideas on how best to combat such emissions.
But to imply that Stephen Harper opposes any measures to reduce GHS emissions simply is not true.
DAVID MURRELL
Fredericton
Bigger priorities than police complex
Lately, it seems all we see in the news concerning Saint John is the key component of the so-called "North of Union" project, the new Justice/Police Complex. It's estimated to cost city taxpayers millions for this part of the total project.
I fail to see how the city council can talk about spending that kind of money on this unnecessary project in the face of so many other important things that need attention now in Saint John.
I can think of five or six important things right off the bat.
The first one that comes to mind is the city's pension fund deficit. Is it not more important to top that up than to have a Police/Justice Complex?
Money needs to be allocated to correct the flooding in the Glen Falls area every time there is a "shower."
The drinking water in Saint John needs attention. Boil orders should not be needed because of some rain.
The city streets are in the worst shape in years and need lots of attention and money directed at them.
There are several other things the city could be spending money on, but a new Police/Justice Complex is not one of them. As far as a new Justice building is concerned, their reasoning for the need of one is to make up for closing courthouses in Sussex and Hampton. Well, don't close them!
This whole thing is a classic example of putting the cart before the horse by a totally dysfunctional city council.
BRIAN GAMBLE
Hampton
Search Articles
More CE Network Sites & Partners:
Comments (13)
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.
Well said !
But you do realize that reason has no place in this arguement, it has become an emotional and often self serving cry for so many.
The article above yours from J & J Ashfield, I agree it is sad that one of your children will have the option of EI and the other 2 may not, as a parent I understand your frustration. But the continuance of a program that has reached so few at the cost of many is not fair to all.
I think you, like many other people, have been confused about the police-justice complex project. And I think the TJ bears a large amount of the responsibility for that confusion. Every article about the project suggests the City of Saint John is proposing to spend $100million on the project. That is just not true.
$47million out of the $100million is being spent by the province. It is the province which is building the court house and City Hall has nothing to do with that. By cancelling that does not mean the money is available for something else.
I would just like to read articles and comments which are based on correct facts. I make on comment on your opinion on the matter.
So you are suggesting separate school for the immersion program ? So now we would have the English Schools, The French Schools( no anglophones permitted ) and an Immersion School. And that would cause less streaming how ?
I think the drastic moves were made because we cannot afford what we have now, especially when it is not working, so I am not sure how another separate school with a program that works for so few would be beneficial.
But it would satisfy the vocal few that are willing to say the hell with the rest of kids in this province, I want what is best for me and my kids...period !!
Education is not working in NB because there is a lack of rigor in the system and also because resources have not been allocated to support our programs, French Second Language programs included. The Federal goverment pays each provincial goverment a certain amount per student per year for French second language education. Unfortunately, this Federal money has not been spent on the programs it was intended to support.
I've had children in school in NB, Quebec and Alberta - NB's system is very weak by comparison.
The 'core' program in New Brunswick is a disaster. Although it receives the vast majority of resource funding, the high number of students who require support has resulted in a system that fails to produce literate and well educated students. Yes, there is streaming - largely because the neighbourhood schools have tried to be 'everything to every student'. Most provinces have designated 'immersion' schools, which helps to cut down on streaming. If your child has to take a long bus ride past the neighbourhood school most of their friends attend, you tend to think twice, and choose immerison ONLY if you are truly committed.
I don't think streaming would be reduced just because there was a second school to attend, this may be less like streaming and more like segregation, another wedge between the haves and have nots, ...and I don't necessarily mean that in a financial sense but more along the social lines of parents. Many kids are kept out of EI because of negative stereotypes from parents( and it happens on both sides of the fence ), shipping kids to another school would be just another reason for them.
I doubt we are spending money earmarked for FSL on other programs, probably the other way around if the truth be told. We are back to the original problem, we have a small population that generates too little revenue to meet all our perceived needs. Maybe we should look at cutting the public service, reducing other social programs, reducing spending on health care and whatever else we can do and then maybe we could afford this Cadillac of language training.
week, they were talking, right along, using French. By the time Grade 5 rolls around, other things are taking
priority (in their brains) and it will not be as effective. This is my opinion of the whole mess.