There was a very interesting advertisement in the Times & Transcript on Tuesday this week, signed by “The Canadian Institute for Research on Public Policy and Public Administration”

The Institute, established in 1983 is an independent, not for profit organization located on the campus of the Université de Moncton.

The ad read as follows “Research says: if you want your children to be fully bilingual in New Brunswick (and learn other subjects as well) send them to a French-Language Daycare and a French-Language School”.

In a subsequent newspaper article, Daniel Bourgeois, Executive Director of the Institute, while pointing to research on when young children best acquire another language was quoted as saying
“Neuro-cognitive sciences tell us children will (best) learn the syntax, the grammar (and) the structure (of language) from age one to six.

Yet here we are in New Brunswick fussing about whether French immersion should start in Grade 1 or in Grade 5”. It seems pretty clear to me that the earlier you expose children to a second language the more likely they are to learn it.

Over the last few weeks, I’ve heard from dozens of people concerning the decision of Education Minister Kelly Lamrock to cancel the early French Immersion program in New Brunswick and replace it with an “Intense French” program that would begin in Grade five. 90% of respondents have trashed Lamrock’s decision, most on the basis of personal experience.

More significantly, a majority of them have told me this is a voting matter. Even people who have been Liberals forever are talking about changing their vote unless Lamrock relents.

New Brunswick ranks last in Canada in literacy, math and science and people understand that something has to be done about it. They also agree that the current system of two language training is not working but to use an old adage, they don’t believe that throwing the baby out with the bathwater makes any sense.

They welcome “Intense French” as a replacement for the core French program but they reject the idea that “early immersion” should be scrapped. They believe it should be improved.

Intuitively, people know that language is best learned at the earliest of age. They know that to abandon “early immersion” is to abandon a once in a lifetime opportunity. Intellectually, they believe that early immersion is a powerful symbol of the Province’s commitment to “official bilingualism” and that removal of early second language immersion from our public school system would undermine that commitment.

To make matters worse, Mr. Lamrock’s decision appears to be based on a faulty premise. Here in part is what two university professors, Dr. Diana Hamilton, Mount Allison University, (who teaches advanced statistics to biology students) and Dr. Matthew Litvak at UNB Saint John (who also has taught advanced statistics to biology students) have to say about the French Second Language Report that informed Mr. Lamrock’s decision.

“A detailed review of the Report has revealed numerous errors in methodology, statistical analysis and reasoning. It is a deeply flawed document which fails to provide valid evidence in support of the sweeping policy changes that its authors propose.”

Here’s what a local businessman had to say “Killing the early immersion program was a huge political mistake but more importantly it is a huge mistake in public education policy. They should fix what is now in place, not toss it out to be replaced with an experimental program. Even if Mr. Lamrock should be proven right, it will be eight to ten years before we know it. If he’s wrong, he will have deprived a half generation of people the opportunity to succeed in a second language”.

And from a mother “This is a very personal issue for me. You are talking about my children and their right to learn a second language in a supposedly bilingual province. What kind of a person would take away an early learning opportunity for children when everyone knows they begin to learn language soon after they are one year old? To ask them to wait ten years for their second language is ridiculous”.

Lamrock’s decision has triggered protests across the Province, 100 people in Saint John the other day, more than 300 in Fredericton and another 300 in Moncton. In 1999, the Liberals were defeated on the toll highway issue. In 2003, the Conservatives were almost defeated on the auto insurance issue and then succumbed to the Liberals in 2006.

When things got hot concerning recommendations concerning the restructuring of our Post Secondary Education institutions, the Premier wisely called on the presidents of those institutions to help him resolve the problem. I’m certain that he will find a way to resolve this issue as well.

W.E. (Bill) Belliveau is a Shediac resident and Moncton business consultant. He can be contacted at bill.bellstrategic@nb.aibn.com Atlantic Insight is a published Blog inventory of opinion articles published weekly in New Brunswick's print media as written by W.E. (Bill) Belliveau, who is a resident of Shediac, New Brunswick, and small business owner, operating his Moncton-based marketing consultancy, Bell Strategic. He can be reached by e-mail at mailto:bill.bellstrategic@nb.aibn.com