Changes too drastic for us

Published Monday April 28th, 2008
A7

I am a former resident of Chatham and think that your readers might be interested in the following letter I write to MLA John Foran, Minister of Public Safety.

Mr. Foran: I am writing to you to express my opposition to your government's decision to eliminate the Early French Immersion (EFI) program in New Brunswick. I believe delaying teaching our children French until Grade 5 is a mistake. I am not alone in this belief, for many parents and language education experts from across the country have also criticized this decision.

You have shown a strong commitment to improving the life of our children, in your policing career, your membership on the District 16 School Board, and on the "Youth at Risk" committee, among other accomplishments.

What if this is a mistake, as the experts say it is?

Surely we should not be rushing into something that is such a drastic change. Also, why is the government basing its decision on a report that has shown to be so poorly done and includes basic statistical errors? There is a certain irony in this, as it is supposed to facilitate improving the education system. Mr. Bernard Richard, the provincial Ombudsman, has suggested the decision be delayed a year, and I would suggest his advice be heeded.

No doubt there are many improvements that can be made to the current system. I would like to see EFI continue and I would like to see special needs children supported in the EFI program. The children currently in the Core French program could still have Intensive French offered to them in Grade 5, as the designers of the program originally intended. If this is not a resource issue, as the minister of education has claimed publicly several times, then why was this not considered? We also need to support children from disadvantaged backgrounds before they hit the school system.

Thank you for considering these options.

Geoff Martin

Please Log In or Register FREE

You are currently not logged into this site. Please log in or register for a FREE ONE Account.
Logged in visitors may comment on articles, enter contests, manage home delivery holds and much more online. Your ONE Account grants you access to features and content across the entire CanadaEast Network of sites.

Comments (3)

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.

Hear hear, Mr. Martin. Yours is a voice of reason.
24
Thumbs Up
1
Thumbs Down
Flag as Inappropriate
Flag as Inappropriate
Anonymous Reader on 28/04/08, 2:35:25 PM ADT
Please let us know if and when you recieve a reply.
11
Thumbs Up
0
Thumbs Down
Flag as Inappropriate
Flag as Inappropriate
Anonymous Reader on 29/04/08, 9:35:17 AM ADT
Mr. Martin:

Your article addresses one of the basic logical errors plagung the government's position in this dispute: the either/or fallacy, the deceptive and distracting assumption that only two options exists when in fact, as you have pointed out, there are many ways in which the currently flawed system can and must be improved without scrapping the a successful and in-demand programme.
9
Thumbs Up
0
Thumbs Down
Flag as Inappropriate
Flag as Inappropriate
Interested Party, Fredericton on 29/04/08, 11:50:52 AM ADT
Advertisement
Advertisement

Search Articles