On the cutting edge or over the edge?:
The foundation years program in New Brunswick

"New Brunswick has the most advanced education system in North America.

With these words James Lockyer, Minister of Education for New Brunswick, introduced the new Education Act and a number of educational innovations.  Phrases like "on the cutting edge of education in Canada" were used by Department of Education personnel and suggestions made that other provinces would soon follow the forward looking reforms being introduced in New Brunswick. This was the situation in the Spring of 1997.  Eighteen months later, however, a different message was heard.  A new Minister of Education raised doubts about the wisdom of some innovations, spoke of changes being made too quickly and the need to take a second look at some earlier decisions.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the controversy surrounding one of these innovations, the Foundation Years Program, (now known as the 9-10 Program).  Drawing on data gathered from Department of Education news releases, media reports, commissioned reports and interviews with key players, the paper examines the history of the program itself and the effect of the political climate on the decisions made about the program.  Anonymity and confidentiality has been promised to all interviewees so information gained from key players has been used in such a way that it cannot be traced back to any individual.

The High School Foundation Years Program developed from recommendations contained in the report of the Commission on Excellence in Education, Schools for a New Century.  These recommendations were presented in a High School Issues Paper released in April 1994 and discussed by educators at a High School Issues Conference held later in the year.  By 1995 the document was completed and circulated.  Four schools began the process of implementation in 1995 with the intention that all schools would begin implementation by September 1997.

The basic philosophy of the program was to provide a common curriculum for all grade nine and ten students.  Each student would work at his or her own pace through the common curriculum with mastery based on measurable outcomes.  Assessment was to be ongoing, the teaming of teachers was encouraged along with a new timetabling and scheduling process.  The focus was on individual student development so that through completing the program each student would gain a basic educational foundation and not move onto until this foundation was attained.  The grade 9/10 block was to be known as the Foundation Years and the 11/12 block as the Graduation Years.  In many ways this represented a dramatic innovation in the high school program and would involve considerable structural and pedagogical changes on the part of all school personnel involved.

The Foundation Years Program was one of a number of innovations implemented by the Department of Education.  Other innovations included the restructuring and regrouping of grade levels into Early Years, grades K through 5; Middle Years, grades 6 through 8; and High School Years, grades 9 through 12.  While there were some questions among parents and teachers about the Early Years program both that and the Middle Years program were introduced with very little controversy.

The implementation of the Foundation Years Program was a different matter.  While there were teachers, parents and students who were enthusiastic about the program there were also teachers and parents who had concerns.  Almost from the beginning questions were raised about the program.  The issues raised included the speed of the implementation process with no proper piloting, data gathering, or evaluation; insufficient teacher inservicing/training; class size and insufficient resources for the varying achievement levels within the classroom.  It was also suggested that outcomes had been developed without input from teachers.  Questions were raised as to whether the program was applicable to rural schools where teams of three or four teachers working together was not possible.  Confusion developed among parents about the meaning of the reporting system, (eg, "A" meant adequate rather than the more traditional meaning of "first rate").  Initially discussions occurred between individual parents and school or school district educators.  Later meetings were held with Department of Education officials.  While teachers were allegedly under a "gag order" and could not publicly raise questions about the program, parents and others did not have the same restrictions.  A group of parents, including three university professors, raised concerns and tried to obtain information and clarification from Department of Education personnel about the program through private meetings with Department of Education officials.  They were told everything was just splendid.

Not receiving satisfaction from these meetings more public attempts were made to get the Department of Education to take a second look.  Throughout April, May and June of 1997 numerous letters appeared in the local press raising concerns about the Foundation Years Program.  From time to time responses from the Minister of Education appeared in the press.  For example, on April 16, 1997 a letter from the Minister of Education, James Lockyer, appeared in the Daily Gleaner, responding to a letter from parents and defending the program.  The Minister stated that the outcomes of the program were developed by a curriculum committee of practising teachers and reported to the Curriculum Advisory Committee.  The program was motivating and the number of discipline problems and dropouts were down.  In a further letter of May 12 the Minister again defended the program and indicated that the Foundation Years Program was working well in a number of anglophone districts.  These Ministerial replies did not quieten the concerns and letters to the editors continued.

In May 1997 the Department of Education, in conjunction with the New Brunswick Teachers' Association, commissioned a review of the program and hired two consultants to conduct the review.  In the Status Report, released on June 26, 1997, the reviewers identified the areas of concern which they felt needed to be addressed.  However, the Recommendations were written in generic terms.  The tone of these recommendations allowed the Department of Education to focus on the positive aspects of the program rather than on the concerns raised in the body of the Report.  The Department admitted that the implementation of the program had some flaws and did not meet every expectation but overall the program was gaining acceptance "as New Brunswickers realize that it promotes lifelong learning, individual progress and a common curriculum." (Porter, 1997). 

As a result of the recommendations made by the consultants in the Status Report, the Department announced some changes.  There would now be a three year phase in period, schools were given flexibility in implementing the program as long as the outcomes were met and the Department acknowledged that size, facilities, equipment and resources would effect the implementation process.  The Department also promised to do a better job of communication about the program.  The review committee recommended the creation of an advisory committee but the Department responded that one was already in place.  Professional development opportunities for teachers were also to be improved.  The reviewers hoped the Status Report would enable those involved to review all phases of the program.  The Minister of Education's comment was: ". . . [any change] does not mean revamping or redoing but a `shifting' to strengthen the substance of the program."  Concerns were surmountable problems which could be solved by increased spot checks.  The overall focus of the Department's public response was pleasure at the positive endorsement the program received.

However throughout the Fall of 1997 letters to the editors of local newspapers outlining concerns over the Foundation Years Program continued.  Concerned parents met with Department of Education officials but reported little satisfaction.  Press comments included:

3 years into the Foundations Program, one third of teachers at Moncton High School are having health problems due to stress they're feeling as a result of trying to make it work (Davis, 1997, December 23).

This was one of the sites where the program was allegedly doing so well.  Another press report stated, "Nearly one quarter of Grade 9 and 10 students in the high school foundation program [in a Saint John high school] are not moving ahead as planned" (Davis, 1997, December 27).  There were some positive comments made about the program but these were greatly outweighed by the negative comments (Davis, 1997, December 27).

The Anglophone Provincial School Board held a Forum for parents and educators to discuss the Foundation Years Program in Moncton in November 1997 and as a result of the debates, at its January 1998 meeting, placed concerns about the Foundation Years Program on its agenda and passed a motion, 6-4, noting "grave concern" over the program.  The response from Department officials was consistent with what had gone before. 

Carol Loughrey, the deputy minister, and other Department Officials were present . . . she was unsure what direction the board was proposing, saying the Department was already taking the steps suggested. . . [Gervase] Warren said there may be problems with implementation and Foundation Years may be `a bit ambitious,' but the program is basically sound.  `We're not doing a bad job,' he said (Meagher, 1998, January 20).

In February and March of 1998 concerned parents held meetings across the province.  These meetings appeared to have little effect on the Department of Education. 

Then two events occurred which turned the tide.  On April 7, 1998, the New Brunswick Teachers' Association held a news conference to announce the results of their survey of the Foundation Years Program. 

Their data indicated that ninety-one percent of the province's teachers did not support the program: . . . the program is disorganized, underfunded, unfocused and lacking in leadership at the provincial level (Stephen Llewellyn, 1998, April, 7).

The conclusions of the report indicated that the program should be scrapped.  This news conference was reported in all local newspapers and on local TV and radio broadcasts.  The newspapers included a picture of the piles of questionnaires sorted according to level of support for the program with the pile of questionnaires opposing the program dwarfing the other piles.  The second event occurred approximately one week later during a Liberal Party Leadership Debate.  The former Minister of Education, Bernard Richard, who had resigned as Minister of Education in order to run as a leadership candidate for the Liberal Party, opened up the possibility that things were not all well in education (April 14, 1998, CBC News).  In response to a question from the floor, he admitted that the Foundation Years reforms may have been carried out without enough public discussion and that there may have been errors in judgement on the part of the Department of Education in relation to the program. 

Just one day later, on April 15, 1998, Education Minister Bernard Theriault and NBTA President Dianne Gillett announced the appointment of a Task Group to review and make recommendations on the Foundation Years Program.  The Task Group was to include teachers, principals and administrators and would be in place until the end of June.  The Task Group was to review the principal defining characteristics of the Foundation Program and to recommend an action plan to the Minister by April 30.  Then implementation groups would be set up to implement the action plan for the 1998-1999 school year.  The Task Group was set up with thirteen members, seven nominated by the New Brunswick Teachers' Association and six members nominated by the Department of Education. 

The Task Group made twenty-four recommendations to improve the Foundation Years Program.  The Department of Education immediately adopted these recommendations.  The Minister of Education was quoted as saying that in accepting these recommendations the Department was not admitting that the program had failed. 

No way is it an admission of that . . . The task group kept the spirit of the program and its strengths.  It did not recommend change for the sake of change (Meagher, 1998, May 1).

On May 13, 1998 three working groups were appointed to determine how the recommendations of the Foundation Years Task Group would be implemented for the following school year.  Each working group consisted of classroom teachers and school district officials from each anglophone superintendency.  In addition, parents were nominated to the committees as resource persons with other parents and students to be asked to make contributions.  The issues to be considered were: working group one, scheduling, grouping, curriculum delivery and some student choice; working group two, number and clarity of outcomes; working group three, monitoring student achievement and reporting of student progress to parents. 

On June 23, 1998 the recommendations of the Task Group and working groups were accepted by the Minister of Education, Bernard Richard, (now back in the position after being unsuccessful in his bid for the Liberal Leadership). 

The major concerns of teachers, parents and students are being addressed. For example, the tracking of individual outcomes will be abandoned; outcomes are being re-written in user friendly language; teachers will use professional judgement in the use of rewrites; early exit from the program is being eliminated; districts and schools will be given the option of reporting student achievement using either percentages or indicators such as letter grades; and an advisory committee, including classroom teachers, will monitor high school reorganization (Department of Education, 1998, June 23).

Each of the working groups recommended that the changes suggested should be either piloted before general implementation or reviewed by a curriculum committee.  These recommendations were to be put in place for the 1998 1999 school year.  In addition, interested schools could pilot methods of providing choice for the grade 9 and 10 program. 

So in the space of eighteen months rhetoric from the Department of Education changed from support of this wonderful program to agreeing that substantial changes were needed.  For many months the Department of Education ignored or downplayed concerns raised but after the NBTA survey and the statement of Bernard Richard a one hundred and eighty degree turnaround took place.  The recommendations of the Task Group were not new; many of them had been noted as concerns in the Status Report.  The difference was the attitude of the Department of Education.  Why did such a change take place?  What were the factors which caused the change of attitude on the part of the Department of Education? 

In the spring of 1996 the government of New Brunswick abolished district school boards and replaced them with a system of Parent Councils at the school and district levels. One anglophone and one francophone school board for the whole province were established.  This reorganization produced a two-fold result.  The Department of Education was able to direct school matters without working through school boards, thus gaining a form of direct access to the classroom which had not been there previously.  But at the same time the buffer between the government and the public was removed.  Complaints from parents which previously were directed at school boards now had the potential to go straight to the Department of Education or the local MLAs.  Parents who had concerns would contact their elected representatives directly.  Educational matters came up regularly in caucus meetings because the public now went straight to their MLAs.  Whereas previously concerns about the Foundation Years Program would have been directed to local school boards, in this instance they were directed to the public through the press.  Thus the stage was set for a public awareness and debate on the perceived problems of the Foundation Years Program. 

Many problems were caused by the method of implementation adopted by the Department of Education.  This implementation process took no account of what was involved in educational change.  The program was never piloted.  The schools which started the program in 1995 were "early starters" not pilot sites so there was no data gathering or evaluation of their experiences.  There was no chance to modify the program from the feedback of the teachers and students in these schools.  While there was a clear vision in the minds of Department personnel, this vision was not articulated in terms of the practicalities and details of the program.  These gaps in communication became more and more evident as teachers and students entered the second and third year of the program.  Teachers who were positive about the program in the beginning became disenchanted in subsequent years.  Fullan (1991) lists ten factors to consider in implementing effective change and few, if any, of these were addressed in the implementation of the Foundation Years Program.  This point was reinforced by the Task Group, which attributed the problems with the program to: . . .

. . . misinformation and illusions, the communication which was not always explicit, and the uncertainty resulting from the departure from past practice in such areas as school philosophy, school organization and structure, and pedagogy resulted in an implementation which did not progress smoothly (Department of Education, 1998, p. 3).

In addition, the Department received mixed messages as to the success of the program.  The Status Report contained areas of concern but the final recommendations were written in generic terms.  It was understandable that the Department could feel that few, if any, major changes were needed. 

If you just look at the eight recommendations, I don't think the Department felt they had to do anything more (Interview with key player).

This study and report were completed over a very short time period, about three weeks, and in most cases the reviewers interviewed administrators rather than teachers.  So the teachers' input was missed in the Status Report.  Coupled with this was the fact that no mechanism existed for gathering the teachers' input, so it was not until the NBTA Survey that all teachers were asked for their reaction.  Yet the input of teachers was vital in order to assess how well the program was working. 

I keep going back to the teachers because teachers are the key, they are the people in the front lines, they're the ones that deal with these students day after day.  And it's wonderful to sit in an office and read the research and say, "Wow, this looks good." But it's a whole different ball game to hand that vision to a classroom teacher and say, "Make it work." (Interview with key player).

It should be noted, however, that there were teachers who supported the program and who felt that the Foundation Years Program was exactly what was needed for grades nine and ten.  These teachers opposed any suggestion that the program should be changed. 

The centralization of the education system in the province caused those responsible to forget that differences existed among schools and communities and that each site was unique.  One parent, in an interview, summed up the problems of the implementation process by saying:

All the system needed to do was to be flexible; to say, "If you're ready to do this we'll help you make it happen."  The parents who are ready to do this, "We'll help you make it happen.  But if you're not ready for this, we'll give you time" . . . .  But there's this determination that if we don't mandate it and if we don't make everybody do it, it can't work.  So the same system that talks about meeting individual needs, is not meeting individual needs, amongst its staff or amongst its clients. (Interview with parent).

Sarason (1990) noted that such problems occur when those responsible for implementing a new program do not understand the change process:

Educational reformers have trouble understanding that change by legislative fiat or policy pronouncements from on high is only the first and the easiest step in the change process, a step that sets in motion the dynamic of problem creation through problem solution.  Content to remain on that first step, assuming as they do that the goals of change can be achieved by a process that could be called human mechanical engineering, insensitive as they are to what the change will activate in the phenomenology of individuals and their institutional relationships, they confuse a change in policy with a change in practice.  And they also assume that change is achieved through learning and applying new or good ideas.  They seem unable to understand what is involved in unlearning what custom, tradition, and even research have told educational personnel is right, natural and proper (Sarason, 1990, p. 101).

There is a perception among some of the concerned parents that the Department of Education perceived any questions from parents as attacks.  These parents claim they wanted answers and an acknowledgement of their point of view.  They were met with what they felt was a defensive posture which left no room for other beliefs. This attitude set up a confrontational and negative situation that was not intended.  There were obviously people within the Department who believed strongly in the philosophy of the program and believed that this program was the best possible for the students of New Brunswick.  But because the program had been implemented without proper piloting there was no mechanism for feedback and further refining before full adoption.  Individuals within the Department of Education may be angry at what happened with the Foundation Years Program but there may be long-term benefits as a result.  McLaughlin (1987) discussed lessons that could be learned from policy implementation attempts and outlined some benefits for resistance and stalling. 

But we have also begun to understand that this kind of incremental, creeping, locally defined change is often for the best.  Again, local response may provide what reformers need, not what they want.  Slam bang effects threaten the core operations of an implementing system, disrupting routines and established practices (Meyer & Rowan, 1977).  The consequences of such disruption may be the policy outcomes planners hoped for.  But more possibly, the destabilization attending a slam bang effect may leave the implementing system less effective than it was at the outset, or yield only ephemeral gains.  The marginal, incremental responses natural to managers and practitioners in fact may ensure that the changes associated with a reform effort take more time than expected but that once in place, they are stable.  Likewise, externally induced practices inconsistent with local routines, traditions, or resources are likely to be rejected in time, despite early apparent "compliance."  "Muddling through" then can be seen not only as an adaptive response to demands for change but also as the more beneficial response in the long term (McLaughlin, 1987, p. 174).

So the derailing of the Foundation Years Program may be a useful lesson in how to implement new programs effectively. 

But an ineffective implementation process, in itself, does not account for the change of attitude on the part of the Ministers of Education.  Other political factors were at work.   In January and February of 1997 hearings on the new Education Act were held and members of the public were invited to present briefs.  The proposed new Act was to introduce sweeping changes to the provincial education system.  Not all these changes were welcomed by all sections of the province so a number of briefs questioning the government's actions were presented.  During these hearings the Premier of the province, Frank McKenna, told the media in an interview that there was really no need for any hearings at all because as soon as the public realized that the government knew best there would be no further opposition.  This statement summed up the attitude of the government of the time.  The Liberal party had been in power since 1988 with no strong opposition in the legislature. 

During 1997 the political climate in the province changed.  Plans were made to close a number of schools in the province, including some on the Acadian Peninsula.  Most of the closures met with opposition but the most dramatic was staged by parents on the Acadian Peninsula.  This opposition resulted in riots and confrontations with the RCMP which made national headlines.  A new Minister of Education was appointed in a cabinet reshuffle and the planned school closings were reversed.  Was this change in Ministers a way of allowing the government to back down and save face?  Then in the May 1997 Federal Election, Atlantic Canada threw out almost all of the Liberal members of parliament.  A subsequent provincial election in Nova Scotia returned a minority Liberal government.  These results were interpreted as a warning by the New Brunswick provincial government.  Atlantic Canada was not happy about a number of issues.  Would the New Brunswick legislature be next? 

So the opposition to the Foundation Years Program was assisted by a change in premier, a leadership race and a poor showing for the Liberal Party in New Brunswick in the Federal Election and the Nova Scotia provincial election.  In a number of its dealings with the public the New Brunswick government quickly became a government that "listened to the people" as opposed to a government that "knew what was best." 

But has the policy of Department of Education really changed?  Opinions differ among the key players.  Some talk of improved relationships with the Minister of Education and the importance that has now been placed on proper piloting and teacher input.  The name of the program has been changed to the 9-10 Program and a provincial coordinator has been hired to oversee the program.  An Advisory Committee of teachers and other educators and parents has been struck to oversee the program and the anglophone provincial school board is also monitoring the program on an ongoing basis. 

However concerns are raised by some parents that the statements by the Minister and the creation of the Working Groups was merely a tactic to "get people off their backs". 

I think they took the easy-to-fix things that don't matter and did something about them . . . they've reworded the outcomes . . . and some people were very concerned about the percent marks . . . they responded to that . . .  Did they change the idea, that kids are different and have different needs and we'll acknowledge that?  They did not.  And did they acknowledge that teachers are different and work better in different environments? They did not.  I think those are the only things that matter (Interview with parent).

The combination of the NBTA Survey, the Leadership race, the results of the Federal Election and the perceived possibility that the Liberal Government would lose the next provincial election all worked together to create what became the changing of the Foundation Years Program.  Whether this change is permanent and whether the planned changes will address the issues raised by the concerned parents, time will tell.  McLaughlin (1987) presents the following model which mirrors this opinion:

Implementors at all levels of the system effectively negotiate their response, fitting their action to the multiple demands, priorities and values operating in their environment and the effective authority of the policy itself.  Further, this bargaining or negotiation is a continuous process, proceeding over time as policy resources, problems and objectives evolve and are played against a dynamic institutional setting.  This means that the nature of the bargain will change over time within settings and will most likely differ across units of the policy system (McLaughlin, 1987, p. 174).

The Foundation Years Program was only one of a number of issues on which the New Brunswick government faced.  School closings, the toll highway, cuts to the health service were all targets of public protest.  On a number of these issues the government reversed its position.  Proposed school closures were reversed in July 1997 and in September 1998 the Minister of Education announced that parents would now vote on whether a local school should close.  If the parents are against it, the school will not close (White, 1998, September 4).  Economic retrenchment has been completed and discussions are underway for putting some money back into the social safety net. 

Educators may argue that the changes were driven purely by educational factors but I think there is enough evidence to suggest that what happened with Foundation Years is as much a political response as it is an educational response.  When the government was in a strong political position, the Minister of Education supported the program.  When the political climate changed the Minister listened to concerns about the program and acted to make changes.  "Listening" now appears to be one of the trade marks of the New Brunswick government.  In a television interview and phone-in session (CBC, 1998, August 24), Premier Camille Theriault emphasized the importance of listening to the people of New Brunswick.  In response to many questions he described how he was travelling around New Brunswick to talk to New Brunswickers and get their opinions on various issues.  He spoke also of not making decisions without consulting New Brunswickers first.  This attitude is a far cry from Frank McKenna's comments about the hearings on the Education Act which indicated, "we do not need to hold these hearings, we know what's best, once the people of New Brunswick realize we know best, they will go along with what we are doing."  Whether the listening attitude continues and significant changes made to the Foundation Years Program, time will tell.

References

         CBC, (1998, August 24). NB Now. Fredericton: Canadian Broadcasting Company.

         Commission on Excellence in Education, (1992, May). Schools for a new century. Report on the Commission on Excellence in Education.

         Daily Gleaner, (1997, May 12). Letter to the Editor. Foundation Years Getting Passing Grades Elsewhere. Daily Gleaner.

         Daily Gleaner, (1997, May 28). Parents Fear Losing Its Foundation. Daily Gleaner.

         Davis, S. (1997, December 23). New Program blamed for Moncton teachers' Health Problems. Telegraph Journal.

         Davis, S. (1997, December 27). An Unexpected Outcome. Telegraph Journal.

         Department of Education (1998). The high school foundation program: A report. Available www.gov.nb.ca/education/hsfpe.html.

         Department of Education, (1998, June 23). Minister accepts recommendations. Available www.gov.nb.ca/cnb/news/edu/8e1043ed.htm.

         Department of Education, (1998, September 29). Grade 9/10 advisory committee members. Available www.gov.nb.ca/cnb/news/edu/8e1612ed.htm.

         Elmore, R. (1978). Organizational models and social program implementation. Public Policy, 26(2), 185-228.

         Fullan, M. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers' College Press.

         Jh, (1997, September 2). A positive outlook: Education minister foresees stability in the province's schools after two years of turmoil. Telegraph Journal.

         Llewellyn, S. (1998, April 7). Teacher survey calls for program overhaul: Foundation cracks widen. The Daily Gleaner Online. Available www.dailygleaner.com/040898/EDUCATIO/112230.htm

         Lockyer, J. (1997, April 16). Letter from the Minister of Education, Daily Gleaner.

         McLaughlin, M.W. (1987). Learning from experience: Lessons from policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9(2), 171-178.

         Meagher, D. (1997, August 19). Board to Tackle Foundation Years Program. Daily Gleaner.

         Meagher, D. (1998, April 1). Out to topple the Foundation Years Program. Daily Gleaner.

         Meagher, D. (1998, May 1). Rebuilding foundation years. The Daily Gleaner, pp. A1, A3.

         Mitchell, D. (1988). Educational politics and policy: The state level. In N. Boyan (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational administration, pp. 453-466. New York: Longman.

         New Brunswick Teachers' Association, (1998). "Foundation Program" A survey of teachers. Report of the NBTA ad hoc Committee on High School Organization.

         Porter, T. (1997, June 26). Foundation Years Proceeding with Implementation Patch-Up, Daily Gleaner, pp. 13, 14.

         Richardson, D. (1998, March 20). Foundation Years Program Changes Coming. New Brunswick Telegraph Journal.

         Sarason, S. (1990). The predictable failure of educational reform: Can we change course before it's too late? San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 101.

         Times and Globe, (1998, February 13). Crowd Voices Foundation Frustration. Times Globe and Mail, A1 & A2.

         White, A. (1998, September 4). Parents will get to vote on school closure decision. Telegraph Journal.

Appendix 1: Time Line of Events Related to the Foundation Years

1992, May:	Schools for a New Century: The Report of the Commission on Excellence in Education
1994, April:	High School Issues Paper
1994:	High School Issues Conference
1995:	High School Framework Document completed
1995, August:	Four schools begin the implementation process
1997, February:	Public hearings on the new Education Act James Lockyer is Minister of Education
1997, Spring:	New Minister of Education, Bernard Richard, appointed
1997, April-June:	Letters in local press expressing concern over the Foundation Years Program Minister of Education responds to concerns and indicates that all is well and program is gaining support
1997, May:	High School Foundation Program Status Review and Report Minister focuses on support for the program and announces some changes
1997, August:	Anglophone Provincial School Board tackles Foundation Years Program
1997, September:	All schools implement the Foundation Years Program
1997, September:	Minister of Education interview, admits the need to take a second look at some reforms
1997, November:	Public forum in Moncton organized by the Anglophone Provincial School Board
1997, December:	One third of the teachers in a high school where the program is described as running smoothly attribute health problems to trying to make the Foundation Years Program work One quarter of students in another high school not moving ahead as planned
1998, January:	Motion of concern passed 6-4 by the Anglophone Provincial School Board Senior officials in the Department of Education cannot understand why as they are addressing all concerns
1998, February:	Bernard Richard steps down as Minister of Education to run for the leadership of the provincial Liberal party Bernard Theriault becomes Minister of Education
1998, February-March:	Parents meetings held
1998, March:	Bernard Theriault admits there may be a need for some changes
1998, March 31:	Day of protest
1998, April 7:	NBTA Survey results released. 91% of teachers have concerns about the program Program should be scrapped Minister of Education resists the call to scrap the program
1998, April 14:	Former Minister of Education Bernard Richard admits problems and insufficient public discussion over the program during a Leadership Debate
1998, April 15:	Task Group appointed to review the program
1998, April 30:	Task Group Report. Twenty-four recommendations to improve the program adopted by the Minister of Education
1998, May 13:	Three Working Groups appointed to determine implementation of recommendations
1998, June 23:	Recommendations of the Task Group and Working Groups accepted by the Minister of Education Bernard Richard Minister of Education again
1998, September:	Appointment of Advisory Committee for Grade 9/10 Program

Move up one link.

Go to the N.B.C.E.A. home page.

Go to the University of New Brunswick home page.