elementary french immersion program review · the overall goal for any french immersion program is...

Elementary French Immersion Program Review

Rosanne Brown, Ed.D. and Kim Bennett, M.Sc.

November 2017

Steering Committee 2016-2017 Co-Chair: Trustee Suzanne Nurse Co-Chair: Superintendent of Curriculum and Instruction Poleen Grewal French Immersion Trustee Representation Janet MacDougald French Immersion Trustee Representation Sue Lawton French Immersion Trustee Representation Kathy MacDonald Parents for French Tanzila Mian Daniela Schultze

Candy Weekes Associate Director Scott Moreash Co-ordinating Superintendent Jeff deFreitas Superintendent of Education – North Field Office Michael Logue Superintendent of Education – South Field Office Paul Da Silva Co-ordinating Principal – Elementary Education Cathy Roper Instructional Co-ordinator, French as a Second Language Amy Cundari French Immersion Registration Supervisor Kelvin Dunne Research Officer Rosanne Brown President of Peel Principals’ and Vice-Principals’ Association Bill MacGregor Peel Principals’ and Vice-Principals’ Association Lucy Fields Bettina Samson Controller – Corporate Support Services David Neale Human Resources Representation Kent Armstrong Communications Representation Kayla Tishcoff

Carla Pereira Planning/Accommodation Representation Bianca Bielski Suzanne Blakeman Dana Guterres

Suggested Citation: Brown, R. & Bennett, K. (2017, November). Elementary French Immersion Program Review. Mississauga,

ON: Peel District School Board.

© Peel District School Board

TABLE OF

CONTENTS

Introduction ......................................................................... 1 Objectives and Methodology ................................................ 2 Review Question 1 ................................................................ 6 Review Question 2 ............................................................... 12 Review Question 3 ............................................................... 16 Review Question 4 ............................................................... 23 Review Question 5 ............................................................... 27 Summary .............................................................................. 32 References ........................................................................... 34

Elementary French Immersion Program Review 1 Research and Accountability Department November 2017

INTRODUCTION The overall goal for any French Immersion program is to enable students to communicate and interact with confidence in French. Students develop the knowledge, skills, and perspectives they need to succeed in a bilingual and multicultural Canada, as well as a rapidly changing global economy. A further objective is to ensure that students learn about Canada’s two official languages and other cultures. The intent is for students to develop strong fundamental skills in oral communication (listening and speaking), reading, and writing (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2001, 2013a, 2013b). For French Immersion programs, “French must be the language of instruction for a minimum of 50% of the total instructional time at every grade level and a minimum of 3800 hours of instruction in French must be completed by the end of grade 8” (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2013a, p. 16). In 2011, a French Immersion Review Committee was established at the Peel District School Board (Peel board). The committee met during the 2011-2012 school year to “examine data to consider the implications of the various options to manage the growth of the French Immersion and Extended French programs at the elementary level” (Peel District School Board, 2012, p. 2). The committee was established in response to information brought to the trustees’ attention regarding the “challenges facing the board as a result of the growth of the French Immersion program” (Peel District School Board, 2012, p. 2). Some of the challenges included increased preparation time due to the provision of 85% of instructional time in French in grade 1, as well as finding qualified French-speaking staff (Peel District School Board, 2012). French Immersion has been offered in the Peel board for over twenty years. There has been an increased interest in the program over time. Currently, there are waitlists at many of the schools due to high demand and limited spots. At the Peel board, the French Immersion program begins in grade 1. A grade 1 French Immersion enrolment cap (25%) is in place, since there are a limited number of spots available for students entering the program (Peel District School Board, 2015). A randomized selection process is used which ensures that there is an equitable process to determine which students will be offered a space. Parents/guardians apply

to a school with a French Immersion program in their area (based on their postal code). A random computer-based number is given to each application and based on classroom space, applicants are assigned a school. The acceptance is based on the 25% cap. At the regular meeting of the Peel board on September 11, 2012, the Final Report of the French Immersion Review Committee, Elementary 2012 was received. One recommendation from that report was that for the 2013-2014 school year, the percentage of instructional time in French in grade 1 decrease from 85% to 50%. Another recommendation was that the Peel board place a 25% enrolment cap on all grade 1 elementary French Immersion programs. A third recommendation was that staff would consider


implementing both single and dual-track French Immersion schools. It had been three years since these recommendations were implemented when a steering committee was formed, in the fall of 2016, to review the current elementary French Immersion program at the Peel board. It was recommended that a review examining the issues of staffing, instructional time, and space accommodation be conducted and completed by December 2017. Although the Peel board offers other French as a Second Language programs (i.e., secondary French Immersion, Extended French, Core French), the Elementary French Immersion program was only examined in this review.

OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY The steering committee outlined four specific objectives and one overall goal for review. The four objectives are:

to plan for the sustainability of a high quality French Immersion program;

to maintain the efficiency and effectiveness of delivery and instruction of the French Immersion program;

to ensure that students throughout the Peel board have equitable access to the French Immersion program;

to ensure that the French Immersion program is cost effective. The sustainability of a high quality French Immersion program in the Peel board was identified as the overall goal. In order to achieve the above stated objectives, five review questions (see Table 1) were identified by the Elementary French Immersion Program Review Committee to explore. On January 18, 2017, a Terms of Reference was presented to the Peel board’s Instructional Programs/Curriculum Committee for approval. The Terms of Reference was submitted for approval at the Regular Meeting of the Board on January 24, 2017. The Terms of Reference contained the research design which included five review questions, the measures/dimensions, a review sample, and the proposed timelines, as well as a research work plan timeline. For the April, May, and June meetings, an updated Summary Status of the research design was presented. An updated copy of the research design summary status is presented in Table 1.


Table 1: Elementary French Immersion Program Review Research Design Summary Status Review Questions Data Collected

1. What are the demographic characteristics of the students enrolled in the French Immersion (FI) program? What patterns or trends emerge from the demographic characteristics? What is the distribution of French Immersion programs across the board?

Literature Review

Other school boards’ information

Data gathered from the Research department:

FI enrollment by grade, gender, ELLs, students with special education needs (excluding gifted) and non-identified

FI students and Social Risk Index (SRI)

Maps of FI elementary schools and Grade 1, Grade 5, and Grade 8 students enrolled in FI

Maps of FI elementary schools and 2014 SRI

Distribution of dual-track elementary schools

Data gathered from the Planning and Accommodation Support Services department:

French Immersion Density

Grade 1 French Immersion by municipality

Data obtained from the French Immersion Registration Supervisor

2. Is there an optimal percentage of French instructional time for early French Immersion programs? Has there been a change in students’ French grades (oral) from grade 1 to grade 2 since French Immersion instruction decreased from 85% to 50% in grade 1 (e.g., increased or decreased or remained constant)?

Data gathered from the Research department: For the first part of the question:

Information from a literature review

Information from school boards’ reviews across Ontario as well as from other provinces

Information from the administrators’ focussed conversation For the second part of the question:

Second language – oral communication/speaking marks and levels obtained from Student Information System (SIS) for all students in FI in grades 1 and 2 for the school years: 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015

Analyses of differences of marks/levels between grades and years

3. How is the optimal threshold for single and dual-track schools determined?




Information from the administrators’ focussed conversation Data presented by Administrators from Corsair P.S. and Munden Park P.S.


Review Questions Data Collected

4. What are the reasons students withdraw from the French Immersion program?



Reasons obtained from previous Peel board reports


Information from the administrators’ focussed conversation

5. What are the patterns/trends in hiring practices of French as a Second Language (FSL) teachers (including long-term occasional teachers [LTO] and occasional teachers [OT]) since the percentage of French instruction decreased in grade 1? Has there been a difference in hiring practices of teachers with FSL qualifications?

Data collected by the Human Resources department Staffing:

# of teachers/occasional teachers who are qualified but are not teaching French

# of LTO unfilled jobs throughout the year

Average timeline for filling LTO

Process for covering teacher absences

Currently, how is the Peel board doing in hiring qualified staff? Compared to 5 years ago?

Impact of two-year Faculty of Education program Recruitment:

Differences in filling French positions now that FI is 50% instead of 85%

How are schools maximizing the use of French teachers?

Staff attrition rate

How are French teachers being recruited? Interviewing and Hiring

What is the hiring process? French pool hiring process?

Analysis Literature Review A literature review was conducted for all five review questions.

French Immersion Elementary Administrators’ Focussed Conversation An email invitation was sent inviting all elementary vice-principals and principals in schools with French Immersion programs to a focussed conversation on April 6, 2017 at the central board office. There were three groups of five or six principals or vice-principals in attendance for a total of 17 administrators. Administrators who were unable to attend the session had the opportunity to write their responses on a Google Docs form. These responses were submitted from April 6 to April 10, 2017. An additional 15


administrators wrote responses for a total of 32 administrators who contributed to the focussed conversations. Three questions (one question had three parts) from the five review questions were asked. The following three questions were asked: 1. What do you think is an optimal percentage of French instruction time for early French Immersion programs? Why? Please

explain. 2. (a) What do you think is the optimal threshold for dual-track schools?

(b) How would you determine if a school should become a single-track French Immersion site? (c) What are the advantages and disadvantages of your school being a dual-track French Immersion site?

3. What are the main reasons students withdraw from the program? Each question was coded individually for themes using content analysis (Bazeley, 2003; Krippendorff, 2004; Stemler, 2001).

Learning Focussed Conversations At each of the meetings in 2017, there were opportunities for discussion in small and larger groups. The discussions were structured as learning focussed conversations. These conversations centred around formalized questions such as: What are the data telling us?; What are the implications of these data?; What are some questions we have?, etc. The data from those conversations were compiled and categorized using content analysis. The results from each learning focussed conversation are included for each review question.

Data All data required for review question #1 (see Elementary French Immersion Program Review Data Report) were obtained from the Peel board’s Student Information System (SIS) and analyzed using the statistical software program IBM SPSS Version 22. The graphs were produced using Microsoft Excel. Additional data were obtained from the Peel board’s Planning and Accommodation Support Services and Human Resources Support Services departments.

Organization of the Report This report is organized into six main sections. The first five sections contain each of the review questions. For each review question, a literature review, results from the steering committee’s learning focussed conversations, and recommendations are presented. A summary is included in the final section. Data for each review question are included in the Elementary French Immersion Program Review Data Report.


REVIEW

QUESTION 1.

What are the demographic characteristics of the students enrolled in the French Immersion program? What patterns or trends emerge from the demographic characteristics? What is the distribution of French Immersion programs across the board?


LITERATURE REVIEW French Immersion programs began in Canada in 1965 in a suburb of St. Lambert, Québec, which had primarily English-speaking residents. Parents/guardians wanted their children to have the same opportunities as francophone students, such as being able to compete for the same jobs, being completely integrated into Québec society, and fully understanding the French culture (Doyle, 2017; Manitoba Education, Citizen and Youth, 2007). An English-speaking kindergarten classroom was transformed into a French-speaking one. In 1969, the Prime Minister at the time, Pierre Trudeau passed the first Official Languages Act, a vision for a bilingual country. During the 1980s and 1990s, French Immersion programs grew rapidly throughout the country. However, that vision for a truly bilingual country has not been entirely fulfilled. School districts across the country have faced many challenges implementing French Immersion programs. There are no formal provincial policies that govern French as Second Language programs. Mady (2007) notes that “French as a second language (FSL) is the common term used by national and provincial governments to refer to French instruction offered to non-francophones” (pp. 728-729). This leads to inconsistencies not only across school boards, but in schools as well. In order to achieve equitable access for all students, a formal provincial policy needs to be implemented (Cooper, Fusarelli, & Randall, 2004; Mady, Black, & Futlon, 2010). For example, some school boards provide bussing (for its French Immersion students), whereas others do not. Having consistent policies throughout the province would ensure that there is equity to access for all French as a Second Language programs, including French Immersion programs. In 2015, the Toronto District School Board (TDSB) released demographics on their French Immersion program and found that the majority of students enrolled in the program “came from a two-parent household; had parents with a higher level of education; and came from a family with a higher socio-economic status (SES) compared to TDSB students in general” (Sinay, 2015, p. 1). Furthermore, TDSB students enrolled in the French Immersion program, “had higher levels of student engagement; were less likely to have suspensions and absenteeism; and had lower rates of within-year-mobility compared to students in the TDSB in general” (Sinay, 2015, p. 2). At the Thames Valley District School Board (TVDSB), their research findings differed from the TDSB findings. Results from a 2012-2013 study indicated that “French Immersion and non-French Immersion families did not differ for any of the socio-economic background variables. Specifically, there were no differences between the two groups in terms of parents’ education level, family income, single parent status, mobility, or family size” (Thames Valley District School Board, 2015, p. 30). However, in terms of size and demographic characteristics, the Peel board is more similar to the TDSB than to the Thames Valley District School Board.


In a study conducted in New Brunswick by the Canadian Research Institute for Social Policy (CRISP), it was found that there were more females, more students from higher social economic groups, and fewer students with special education needs in French Immersion programs (Willms, 2008). These results are not atypical. In a review of French Immersion programs in school boards across Ontario and Canada, it was found that for most of the boards/districts, the demographic make-up of students in French Immersion programs was similar to Willms’ findings. Additionally, there were fewer students whose first language was not English (Adams, Oracheski, & MacDonald, 2007; Gunn, 2011; Lepage & Corbiel, 2013; Parkin, Morrison, & Watkin, 1987; Rempel, 2016; Safty, 1992). At the Peel board, the demographic composition of the students in the French Immersion program is similar. Overall, there are more females, fewer English language learners, fewer students with special education needs (excluding gifted), and more students from higher social economic groups. For detailed data, see the Elementary French Immersion Program Review Data Report.


WHAT ARE THE DATA TELLING US? Learning focussed conversations took place during the Elementary French Immersion Program Review Committee meetings. The steering committee members were given graphic organizers and were asked: What are the data telling us? and What are the implications of these data? From the discussion held at the Elementary French Immersion Program Review Committee meeting, the following findings were identified for Review Question 1 – What patterns or trends emerge from the demographic characteristics?:

Equity of Access: Demographic Characteristics of the French Immersion program

The Implications of the Program Data

Grade

There is more than a 50% attrition rate from grade 1 to grade 8.

Grade

Due to the popularity and perceived positive reputation of the French Immersion program, parents/guardians may be enrolling their children in a program that they may not be potentially ready for, and therefore may not succeed. This may be possibly limiting availability for students who may be successful.

Gender

There are more females than males.

Gender

The French Immersion program may be more oriented towards females.

Gender differences in enrolment are consistent with other boards.

ELLs

There are fewer ELLs.

ELLs

Parents/guardians may not fully understand what supports are available for ELLs in the French Immersion program.

Students with Special Education Needs

There are fewer students with special education needs.

Students with Special Education Needs

Parents/guardians perceive the French Immersion program as not being welcoming to identified students with special education needs.

Students with special education needs in a French Immersion program may not be getting the support that they need.

The lack of students with special education needs and ELLs in French Immersion programs across Ontario prompted the Ontario Ministry of Education to address this issue. In 2015, the Ontario Ministry of Education issued a report entitled, Including Students


with Special Education Needs in French as a Second Language (FSL) Programs as “part of the Ministry of Education’s ongoing commitment to strengthen FSL education in Ontario…to promote discussion among various stakeholders about issues related to the inclusion of all students, particularly students with special education needs in FSL programs” (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2015, p. 3). And, in 2016 the Ontario Ministry of Education published, Welcoming English Language Learners into French as a Second Language Programs“ to promote discussion among various stakeholders about issues related to the inclusion of English language learners in FSL programs” (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2016, p. 3).

Equity of Access: Social Risk Index (SRI) Implications of the Data

Regional Differences

While the number of schools per municipality is representative of the population, the percentage of enrolment is not representative.

For the city of Brampton, the percentage of grade 1 students in the French Immersion program is below the 25% cap (21.4%).

Regional Differences

Fewer students in Brampton are able to enrol in early French Immersion due to higher demand and longer waitlists.

Brampton is underserviced for French Immersion relative to Caledon and Mississauga.

SRI Factor

Perhaps parents/guardians of higher SRI areas are not applying for the French Immersion program due to challenges associated with SRI (e.g., lower income, travel).

If an older child is in French Immersion and a younger sibling goes to a different school, then a parent/guardian may choose to withdraw the older child.

SRI Factor

The higher the SRI, the greater the chance a student is not in the French Immersion program.

The French Immersion program may not be representative of the full range of socio-economic families in the Peel board.

Accommodation

Physical space is an issue.

Accommodation

French Immersion spaces are put in new schools or schools with declining enrolment which are not geographically spread out throughout the Peel board.


RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the findings from the program review, the following recommendations are made in order to:

sustain a high quality French Immersion program in the Peel board;

maintain the efficiency and effectiveness of delivery and instruction of the French Immersion program;

ensure that students throughout the Peel board have equitable access to the French Immersion program;

ensure that the French Immersion program is cost effective. 1. Cap of 25%

Maintain the 25% cap.

Strategically select schools in high demand areas (e.g., schools with an historically high wait list). 2. Regional considerations for equity of access

Examine the distribution of programs across all three municipalities.

Consider adding French Immersion programs to schools in Brampton when possible (through the Annual Planning process).

Consider adjusting the boundaries in high risk areas so that more students from high Social Risk Index (SRI) areas can enrol in the French Immersion program.

3. Other program options

Extended French – explore opportunities to add additional Extended French sites.


REVIEW

QUESTION 2.

Is there an optimal percentage of French instruction time for early French Immersion programs? Has there been a change in students’ French grades (oral) from grade 1 to grade 2 since French Immersion instruction decreased from 85% to 50% in grade 1 (e.g., increased or decreased or remained constant)?


LITERATURE REVIEW Most of the research studies/literature on French Immersion programs was conducted in the 1970s and 1980s. This is a limitation as much of the research is dated.

The literature varies on the optimal time to begin French Immersion and what percentage of instruction should be in French. This variability is also reflected in school boards across Ontario and Canada. Each school board varies as to when it offers any type of French Immersion program (early, middle, late). Early French Immersion programs range from beginning in Junior Kindergarten to Grade 2.

In Ontario, starting in the 2018-2019 school year, the Halton District School Board (HDSB) will offer its early French Immersion program beginning in grade 2. In previous years, French Immersion started in grade 1 in the HDSB. Not only do the grades differ as to when early French Immersion starts, the percentage of French the students receive also varies across the school boards. The range varies from Junior or Senior Kindergarten (50% to 100% French) to grade 1 (50% to 100% French). At the HDSB, French Immersion will begin in grade 2 with 100% French. Generally, in Canada, middle French Immersion begins in grade 4 or grade 5 and late French Immersion begins from grade 6 to grade 8. More school boards across Canada offer early French Immersion than middle or late French Immersion programs. Only a few school boards across Ontario offer middle French Immersion programs. For a detailed list of school boards in Ontario that offer French Immersion programs, see Elementary French Immersion Program Review Data Report.

Netten (2007) concludes that an optimal entry point which could apply to all children is not possible to determine. It is when both “parent and child are ready to try the Immersion experience” (p. 34). Murphy (2001) further states that “the bulk of the empirical evidence does not support the hypothesis that an earlier starting time correlates with a higher level of proficiency than a later starting time” (p. 4). Stern (1983) stated, “learning may occur at different maturity levels from the early years into adult life. No age or stage stands out as optimal or critical for all aspects of second language learning” (p. 366). Although the results are not conclusive, “it would seem then, that starting time, independent of cumulative time, is not an accurate predictor of the eventual level of proficiency in L2 [second language]” (Murphy, 2001, p. 4).

In a study conducted by Turnbull, Lapkin, Hart and Swain (1998), it was found that the benefits of early French Immersion are most noticeable in graduates’ improved speaking skills. Otherwise, there were no statistical differences between early, middle, and late Immersion students on the listening, written, and reading test scores in French. In a study by Lapkin, Hart and Swain (1992), it was


concluded that students are more successful when they start in early French Immersion programs. Some researchers have found that pedagogical approach or teaching style has a greater influence on the effectiveness of learning a second language than the specific entry point (Dubé & MacFarlane, 1991; Wesche, MacFarlane & Towes-Janzen, 1996).

In studies conducted by Lazaruk (2007), Smyth, Stennett, and Gardner (1974), and Stern (1983), they found that there is increased proficiency between language acquisition and time spent studying the language. Krashen (1981) and Rosansky (1975) believe that the key period of language development is prior to Piaget’s “formal operational period” (Stage 4) of intellectual or cognitive development which is consolidated around age 11. Therefore, much of the earlier literature supported early FI programs.

In a study by Genesee (1981), he found that after two years, students in the Late Immersion program were on par (with the exception of listening) with students who began French Immersion at age five and had been in French Immersion for eight years. A previous study by Burstall, Jamieson, Cohen, and Hargreaves (1974) reached the same conclusion. Studies have indicated that there is a point that the relationship between second language acquisition and proficiency may reach a plateau and eventually decrease over time (Cummins, 1981; Reeder, Buntain, & Takakuwa, 1999; Walberg, Hase, & Rahser, 1978). There is no clear conclusion that there is a linear relationship between the amount of cumulative time and the level of French language proficiency. While the amount of time spent on instruction has a positive effect on language proficiency, the debate still continues regarding the optimal level of intensity.

While it has been debated as to when is the optimal time to begin French Immersion, some of the benefits of early French Immersion programs include: development of French literacy skills which can be transferred to English (Cummins, 1979; Turnbull et al., 1998); stronger long-term oral fluency development (Baker, 2006; Canadian Parents for French, 2008; Swain & Lapkin, 2000); easier language acquisition (Cenoz & Genesee, 1998; Genesee, 1978, 1988; Mella, 2009); more inclusive (Lepage & Corbeil, 2013; Mady et al., 2010; Wesche, 2002; Willms, 2008), and resources are more readily available (Bourgin, 2014; Parkin et al., 1987). One of the noted problems with early French Immersion programs is that it can be challenging to identify learning difficulties in students (Arnett & Mady, 2010; Wiss, 1989).

A benefit of students starting French Immersion in the junior grades (middle French Immersion) is that English literacy skills have been developed and established. Conversely, oral communication skills (compared to written skills) may be delayed (Day & Shapson, 1990; Parkin et al., 1987). Students who enter Late French Immersion are usually self-selected, motivated learners and have the cognitive maturity for second language learning (Hawkins, 2014; Swain, 1981, 2000; Swain & Lapkin, 2008). However, learning a second language and the curriculum concurrently can be challenging. Dicks and Kristmanson (2008) conclude that four


variables affect second language acquisition: age of entry, degree of intensity of language instruction, total cumulative time spent immersed in the language, and pedagogical approach. For detailed data, see the Elementary French Immersion Program Review Data Report.

WHAT ARE THE DATA TELLING US?

Learning focussed conversations took place during the Elementary French Immersion Program Review Committee meetings. The steering committee members were given graphic organizers and were asked: What are the data telling us? and What are the implications of these data moving forward? From the discussion held at the Elementary French Immersion Program Review Committee meeting, the following findings were identified for Review Question 2 – What is the optimal percentage of French instruction time for early French Immersion programs?:

What are the data telling us?

Implications of the Data

The Peel board cannot increase instruction time (grade 1 – 50%) as that would increase the need for more French Immersion teachers.

The data are inconsistent with both the administrators’ comments and the research literature as there is no consensus as to what is optimal.

There are many factors that influence language acquisition, so how do you know what is the optimal percentage?

The Peel board should ensure that there are enough teachers to support the French Immersion program (in terms of percentage of French language instruction) as it currently exists.

French instruction at 50% is appropriate because students (including English language learners) need a foundation of English language skills as well.

French language acquisition should remain in the primary years (i.e., the French Immersion program should remain in grade 1).

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. 50% French instruction

Maintain 50% French instruction beginning in grade 1.


REVIEW

QUESTION 3.

How is the optimal threshold for single and dual-track schools determined?


LITERATURE REVIEW The research literature is mixed on what is the best model (either single or dual-track). Both models have advantages and disadvantages; there is not one model that seems superior. The following comparison chart demonstrates the advantages and disadvantages of single and dual-track schools taken from the research literature and reports from other school boards and districts across Canada.

Table 2: Advantages of Single and Dual-Track Schools

Topic Single-Track Advantages Dual-Track Advantages Multiculturalism more opportunities for French language/culture to

be displayed around the school (e.g., posters, displays)23, 39, 45, 91

more likely for extra-curricular activities, assemblies, etc. to be in French23, 39, 45

more exposure to Canada’s two official languages2, 91

foster a greater understanding of Canadian identity and multiculturalism2, 22, 23, 91

Language immersed in one language – full immersion42, 45, 50

elective courses/subjects taught in French45

exposing students at an early age to both languages can enable them to recognize similarities between words and increase competencies in both languages18

non-immersion students have more opportunities to be exposed to French2, 15, 36, 91

Community one school fosters its own community environment39

students attend the neighbourhood or home school15

smaller community schools stay open due to higher enrollment at the school because of the French Immersion program15

Classes less combined grades35 French Immersion and non-immersion students may take elective courses/subjects together36

Resources resources and funds for only one program at the school23, 33, 45

easier for the administration to manage the budget33

more accessibility of resources for both languages (e.g., in the library, in classrooms)2, 22, 23


Topic Single-Track Advantages Dual-Track Advantages Students less likely to succumb to peer pressure39 both French Immersion and non-immersion

students interact with each other, thus promoting tolerance and understanding23, 36

Demission no advantages found students are able to stay in the same school (if it’s their home school) if they choose to withdraw from the French Immersion program; less disruptive for the students1, 15

Staff more staff who speak French increases the likelihood that students use French outside the classroom (e.g., at recess, in the hallways)23, 91

more likely to have support staff (SERTs, supply teachers) who speak French23, 91

more likely that the administrator speaks French23, 91

teacher satisfaction is reported to be higher39

teachers of both the French Immersion and non-immersion programs benefit from each other’s expertise23

more opportunities for staff collaboration and professional development together1, 15, 23

Core French teacher could do French Immersion coverage91

both French Immersion and non-immersion staff interact with each other, thus being role models for students23

Parent/Guardian Involvement

more commitment from parents/guardians (e.g., willing to drive to French Immersion school, become involved in the School Advisory Council [SAC])35, 91

more involvement of parents/guardians if school is in local/neighbourhood area23


Table 3: Disadvantages of Single and Dual-Track Schools

Topic Single-Track Disadvantages Dual-Track Disadvantages Multiculturalism less exposure to Canada’s two official languages45

less understanding of Canadian identity and multiculturalism45

less opportunities for French language/culture to be displayed around the school (e.g., posters, displays)45

less likely for extra-curricular activities, assemblies, etc. to be in French23

Language students may exhibit delays in learning English oral and written language10

students are less likely to speak French outside the classroom23

Program Perception

perception is that French Immersion is an elitist program10, 15, 23, 91

school is less likely to be comprised of students who are from diverse demographic backgrounds (e.g., students with special education needs, ELLs, higher SRI)26

English program is perceived to be second-best (e.g., students in the program are not as capable in terms of achievement)15, 23, 65

Community local non-immersion students travel further distances to a school with an English program15, 45

students may have to be bussed or walk further distances to a non-French Immersion school45, 65

disappearance of the English program at the school15, 23, 84

Classes no disadvantages found more combined/triple grades84, 91

Resources less English resources10, 42 less French resources10, 91

harder for the administration to manage the budget and allocate resources to two programs23, 65

Students students may consider themselves to be in a better program/school15, 23

division between French Immersion and non-immersion students15, 23, 65

Demission students who withdraw from the French Immersion program have to attend another school; more disruptive for the students15

negative perception from peers for not continuing in the French Immersion program39


Topic Single-Track Disadvantages Dual-Track Disadvantages Staff difficult to find/hire fully bilingual staff15, 23 less likely to have support staff (SERTs, supply

teachers) who speak French23, 45

support staff are divided between the French Immersion program and non-immersion program45

typically one teacher teaches two classes (English/French) so there are two primary teachers1, 91

limited opportunities for staff collaboration and team teaching1, 36

dichotomy between French Immersion and non-immersion teachers36, 45

Parent/Guardian Involvement

less involvement if school is not in the local/neighbourhood area23

may not want to be involved because they feel overshadowed by the non-immersion parents/guardians20, 22, 42

In a study conducted by the Peel District School Board (2012), the board determined that the “optimal division of English and French programs in any school has been identified in previous reports to the Peel District School Board as a gap no greater than 60/40 for either program. Although this is an identified goal, the current reality is that in many centres the English program is strongly outweighed by the French program” (Peel District School Board, 2012, pp. 20-21). For detailed data, see the Elementary French Immersion Program Review Data Report.


WHAT ARE THE DATA TELLING US? From the learning focussed conversation held at the Elementary French Immersion Program Review Committee meeting, the following findings were identified for Review Question 3 – Do we need to consider single-track? If so, what would be the optimal threshold? Single-track schools should be considered if the English program is no longer viable because it is “at risk” in terms of numbers for the English track becoming too low. Five considerations were outlined by the steering committee.

1) Data

Single-track schools should be considered, but there should be a protocol in place to determine the process.

There needs to be data to justify the reason and support the selection of what schools are to be chosen (part of the process).

2) Classes

Triple grade classrooms (e.g., grades 1, 2, and 3 together) make it difficult to provide quality programming.

The optimal threshold is when there are triple grades that have fewer than 20 students.

Need to ask the question, What would be best for students from a program standpoint?

3) Location

A new school is a good starting point for single-track consideration, but this must be planned and communicated to the community well in advance of the new school opening.

A “twin” or nearby school would be needed (e.g., conditions for Corsair P.S./Munden Park P.S. were ideal for single-track).

Community factors should be taken into consideration.

4) Staffing

Will French Immersion qualified teachers from other schools be acquired from other schools to be placed in single-track French Immersion schools?

Are there contractual obligations that limit choice?

5) Implications

Consider financial implications (e.g., costs, bussing).

Consider social implications (e.g., gender balance of students).


A further discussion was held at the Elementary French Immersion Program Review Committee meeting. The steering committee members were given graphic organizers and were asked: What are the data telling us?, What are some questions we have?, and What are the implications of these data moving forward? The following findings were identified for Review Question 3 – How is the optimal threshold for single and dual-track schools determined?:



Out of the 37 schools that have waitlists, which school will be chosen to be a single-track French Immersion site?

What other schools have triple grade classrooms for the English track?

If one school becomes a single-track site, a dual-track French Immersion school would need to be closed.

Community demand is a key factor when considering single-track French Immersion schools.

A threshold for French Immersion would be a triple grade classroom (e.g., three grades should not be combined for the English track).

RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The optimal threshold for single and dual-track schools (i.e., when to consider a single-track French Immersion school)

Monitor the French Immersion and English track balance at dual-track schools though the Annual Planning process.

For dual-track schools, through the Annual Planning process: o the optimal threshold for single and dual-track schools be monitored; o a discussion be initiated through the Annual Planning process when the enrolment of the English program in a dual-

track school is less than 40% and the viability of the English program is determined to be at risk; o once there is consideration for single-track French Immersion schools, it will be important to engage in community

consultation/information sharing (e.g., early in the process, being transparent about the process, provide marketing materials);

o the availability of a nearby school for the English track program be considered.


REVIEW

QUESTION 4.

What are the reasons students withdraw from the French Immersion program?


LITERATURE REVIEW The research literature has been quite consistent for the past few decades on the topic of why students withdraw from the French Immersion program. The following chart are reasons given from the research literature, which includes reports from other school boards and districts across Canada. For detailed results from the elementary French Immersion administrators’ focussed conversation, see the Elementary French Immersion Program Review Data Report.

Table 4: Reasons why students withdraw from the French Immersion program

Reason School Boards, Districts, Research Literature Struggling with the Program

difficulties learning French1, 4, 8, 16, 30, 31, 82

need to improve English language skills8, 30, 31, 73, 82

want to improve grades (English program is considered less challenging)31, 42, 73

need additional support (additional tutoring more expensive, parents/guardians do not speak French)1, 8, 30, 31, 73

special education and ELL supports are not as easily available1, 8, 30, 42, 73, 82

feeling additional pressure to succeed34, 73

teacher suggested it2, 31, 38, 73

Quality of the Program

disappointed with the quality of instruction (lack of differentiated instruction)31, 42

outdated materials/lack of resources31, 42

assigned too much homework31, 42

Parents’/Guardians’ Choice

parents/guardians withdraw their child to support learning, development, social, and emotional needs1, 16, 34, 82

opinion about the French Immersion program has changed34, 42

siblings were at different schools42, 82, 84

childcare issues51, 82

Students’ Choice no longer interested in the French Immersion program31, 34, 73

wanted to be with peers2, 31, 34, 42

Pursuing other Programs

chose to attend regional or gifted programs31, 35, 73


Reason School Boards, Districts, Research Literature Moving and Location

moving outside the district/board2, 31, 82

not offered at home (middle) school31, 34, 82

transportation issues42, 73, 82

Teachers and Class Composition

teachers’ lack of French language skills/inability to speak French well31, 38, 42

high teacher turnover31

did not want to be with the same classmates34, 73

WHAT ARE THE DATA TELLING US? The steering committee members were given graphic organizers and were asked: What are the data telling us?, What are some questions we have?, and What are the implications of these data moving forward? From the learning focussed conversation held at the Elementary French Immersion Program Review Committee meeting, the following findings were identified for Review Question 4 – What are the reasons students withdraw from the French Immersion program?



Students are struggling.

Students with special education needs withdraw; work needs to be done with the teachers since there is support.

Parents/guardians are choosing to withdraw their children (socio-emotional support, transportation).

Other programs/options are being chosen.

How can we continue to support French Immersion students with French-speaking ISSP, if ISSP support is taken away?

Continue exit surveys with parents/guardians (e.g., are the reasons for withdrawal the same for the communities, schools, family of schools, superintendencies in the Peel board or do they differ depending on the area?).


RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Professional Development (PD)

Provide professional development for staff supporting French Immersion programs on how to support students with special education needs and English Language Learners (ELLs) in the French Immersion program (please refer to the Ontario Ministry of Education reports Including Students with Special Education Needs in French as a Second Language [FSL] Programs, 2015 and Welcoming English Language Learners into French as a Second Language Programs, 2016) in order to decrease rates of attrition for students with special education needs and ELLs.

2. French Immersion program messaging

Review French Immersion program messaging and communication (e.g., presentation notes, printed material, information on the website) from kindergarten to grade 1.


REVIEW

QUESTION 5.

What are the patterns/trends in hiring practices of French as a Second Language (FSL) teachers (including long-term occasional [LTO] and occasional teachers [OT]) since the percentage of French instruction decreased in grade 1? Has there been a difference in hiring practices of teachers with FSL qualifications?


LITERATURE REVIEW The Ontario College of Teachers (OCT) conducts the Transition to Teaching (2015) each year to “track the impact on each new cohort of teachers of the ebb and flow of Ontario teacher supply and demand” (p. 1). Data from surveys in 2014 and 2015 identified that “for French-language teachers, it appeared that the surplus was over and a new shortage era could be emerging” (OCT, 2016, p. 2). Although the OCT previously reported that there was a surplus of teachers who were eligible to teach French as a second language, many school boards found that finding certified, high quality teachers has been an issue (Adams et al., 2007; Halton District School Board, 2016; Rehorick, 2004; Rempel, 2016; Veilleux & Bournot-Trites, 2005; York Region District School Board, 2012). And, this is certainly not just isolated to school boards in Ontario; it is apparent across Canada. For example, at the Halifax Regional School Board, “the annual search for suitably qualified teachers to cover the expanding immersion programs has been a major challenge for school boards in Nova Scotia since immersion was introduced about 30 years ago” (Gunn, 2011, p. 14). School districts in rural areas have a more difficult time recruiting qualified teachers (Grimmett & Echols, 2001; Gunn, 2011; Pan, 2014). Moreover, finding qualified and effective occasional and long-term occasional teachers is more of a challenge (Alberta Education, 2014; Ladyman Consulting Inc., 2011). This has also been a concern at the Peel board. In the Peel Board Final Report of the French Immersion Review Committee Elementary (2012), it was stated that “a concern raised continually by school administrators in the Peel board is the lack of French qualified occasional teachers available for day-to-day supply coverage and/or Long Term Occasional positions…Some administrators have reported having classes going for extended periods of time without a qualified French teacher” (p. 15). Due to the Canada-wide shortage of certified, quality teachers who speak French, the Alberta School Boards Association asked teachers what teacher training programs needed to address. Some of the suggestions included, “greater opportunities to meet with and watch practising immersion teachers at all levels for learning about strategies for delivery, classroom management, how to encourage French in the classroom…enhanced training in acquisition of proper or correct French grammar and syntax, more strategies to help students with distinguishing between spoken and written French” (Alberta Education, 2014, p. 259). Teachers are not feeling prepared for all the demands (e.g., teaching students with special education needs) of teaching French as a Second Language when they complete their teaching training program (Council of Ministers of Education, Canada, 2015; Lapkin, MacFarlane, & Vandergrift, 2006).


In Ontario, to teach French Immersion in the elementary grades, although it is preferred to have the Additional Qualification course FSL Part 2 or FSL Part 3 (Specialist), it is not required; having FSL Part 1 (and/or other French qualifications as recorded on the Ontario College of Teachers’ Certificate) is the minimum requirement. A school board can assign a teacher to teach an FSL program who has completed basic teacher education in the French language (or in the English language and is fluent in French) but has no FSL qualification. However, the school board must apply to a regional office of the Ontario Ministry of Education for a Temporary Letter of Approval (TLA) for up to one school year (Ontario College of Teachers, 2017). In a study conducted by the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board, parents/guardians of students in the French Immersion program raised concerns that there was a “lack of fluently bilingual teachers (including supply teachers) that often results in French not being taught or spoken consistently in the classroom” (Adams et al., 2007, p. 10). Although there are minimum requirements for FSL teachers, it does not seem that the level of proficiency is consistent among them. For detailed data, see the Elementary French Immersion Program Review Data Report.


WHAT ARE THE DATA TELLING US? The steering committee members were given graphic organizers and were asked: What are you noticing?, What pops out?, What good news is there to celebrate?, Where are the gaps?, What surprises you about the data?, What are the implications of these data on the enrolment cap? Since many of the same themes emerged, some questions have been amalgamated. From the learning focussed conversation held at the Elementary French Immersion Program Review Committee meeting, the following findings were identified for Review Question 5 – What are the patterns or trends in hiring practices of French as a Second Language (FSL) teachers (including long-term occasional [LTO] and occasional teachers [OT]) since the percentage of French instruction decreased in grade 1? Has there been a difference in hiring practices of teachers with FSL qualifications?:

What are the data telling us? (e.g., noticing, pops out, good news, gaps, surprises)

What are the implications of these data on the enrolment cap?

Demand of French Immersion program increasing

More families are looking for French Immersion education.

There is growing bilingualism.

It is difficult to meet the demand (e.g., not enough teachers).

Despite the 25% cap, the number of classes has increased.

It is jeopardizing some of the English track programs and community (neighbourhood) schools.

Cap needs to be maintained

The cap cannot be increased.

If enrolment increases, the French Immersion program would be too difficult to staff.

25% is already difficult to achieve so continue with the cap.

Difficult to hire qualified French Immersion teachers

Principals are competing amongst themselves to get those few candidates.

There are fewer qualified French Immersion teachers and teachers in general.

Not all French Immersion qualified teachers are teaching French.

The demand exceeds supply.

Many French Immersion teachers are retired with 50 day max.

34% of qualified secondary FSL teachers are not teaching French.

Cap should change from percentage

Peel board should move to a “fixed” amount not a percentage of enrolment.

School-by-school cap of classes allows actual number of classes to increase based on total grade 1 population.


What are the data telling us? (e.g., noticing, pops out, good news, gaps, surprises)

What are the implications of these data on the enrolment cap?

Difficult to hire LTOs and OTs

There is a small number of occasional teachers (e.g., out of 1927 OT applicants, 28 were qualified to teach French and only 4 were hired).

Concerns about getting qualified LTOs/OTs (11% of OTs have FSL qualifications).

Regulation 274 – more turnover for OTs in French Immersion.

Other options

It is questionable whether or not we can maintain the current cap.

May need to adjust cap if jobs cannot be filled.

Peel board could offer additional/increased extended French locations as an alternative.

Staff attrition rates declining

More French teachers are continuing to teach French beyond the five-year commitment.

Principals doing a great job at staffing French Immersion.

Pool hiring is an asset

Peel board can pool hire because of the increased enrolment.

There is retention of pool hires.

RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Recruitment and Staffing

Continue to recruit from around the province and outside of Ontario.

Consider investigating with our partners, the possibility of intermediate teachers to work in both panels (i.e., junior/intermediate, intermediate/senior).


SUMMARY In 2012, three recommendations were put forth by the Peel Board French Immersion Review Committee: 1. For the 2013-2014 school year, the percentage of instructional time in French in grade 1 decrease from 85% to 50%. 2. An enrolment cap of 25% be placed on all grade 1 elementary French Immersion programs. 3. Consider implementing both single and dual-track French Immersion schools. The Peel Board French Immersion Review Committee recommended that a review examining the issues of staffing, instructional time, and space accommodation be conducted and completed by December 2017. An Elementary French Immersion Program Review Committee was formed in 2016 to review the above-stated recommendations. The purpose of this report was to outline information that was gathered for and presented to the steering committee in order to address the status of these recommendations and issues. At the Peel board, there is an increasing interest in French Immersion programs. The number of applications outweighs the number of available spots in the program. A concern raised by the committee is the equity of access of the French Immersion program to all students. Though the distribution of schools throughout the region is similar, the number of classes per school varies. Some schools have more classes assigned to the French Immersion program than other schools. In particular, there is an underrepresentation of students from Brampton and an overrepresentation of students from Mississauga in the French Immersion program. Locations are chosen where space is available or the French Immersion program can be accommodated at a new school. It is sometimes challenging because space is primarily available in the southern region of the Peel board. There are a number of issues that arise when trying to implement French Immersion programs to which all students have equity of access. a) Finding certified quality teachers. This is an issue for school boards and districts across Canada and has been for decades.

Moreover, finding suitable LTOs and OTs is even more challenging. b) Trying to balance the English track and French Immersion program at dual-track French Immersion schools. There are some

schools that have triple grade classrooms in the English track. c) Finding the optimal percentage of early French Immersion instruction. There is no consensus in the research literature nor

among school boards in Ontario or school districts across Canada. Early French Immersion programs begin anywhere from Junior Kindergarten to Grade 2 with French instruction ranging from 100% to 50%.


d) Retaining students in the French Immersion program from grade 1 to grade 8. Although this is not isolated to the Peel board, there are students withdrawing from the French Immersion program each year. From a previous cohort analysis (Gray et al., 2014), on average from grade 1 to grade 8, the attrition rate was over 50%.

If the need arises, the Elementary French Immersion Program Review recommendations will be reviewed and re-examined by December 2020.


REFERENCES 1Adams, J., Oracheski, J., & MacDonald, S. (2007, September). Final report: Review of French as a second language programs,

elementary phase. Ottawa, ON: Ottawa-Carleton District School Board. 2Alberta Education. (2014). Handbook for French immersion administrators. Edmonton, AB: Author. 3Arnett, K., & Mady, C. (2010). A critically conscious examination of special education within FSL and its relevance to FSL teacher

education programs. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13(1), 19-36. 4Baker, C. (2006). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism. (4th ed.). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. 5Bazeley, P. (2003). Computerized data analysis for mixed methods research. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed

methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 385-422). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. 6Bennett, K., Favaro, P., & Lam, T. (2014). Social Risk Index (SRI): Summary of the nine variables: Peel District School Board. Mississauga, ON: Peel District School Board. 7Bourgoin, R. (2014). Inclusionary practices in French immersion: A need to link research to practice. Canadian Journal for New

Scholars in Education, 5(1), 1-11. 8Bruck, M. (2008b). Predictors of transfer out of early French immersion programs. Applied Psycholinguistics, 6(1), 39-61. 9Burstall, C., Jamieson, M., Cohen, S., & Hargreaves, M. (1974). Primary French in balance. Slough, England: NFER Publishing Company. 10Cadez, R. (2006). Student attrition in specialized high school programs: An examination of three French immersion centres.

Unpublished master’s thesis. University of Lethbridge: Lethbridge, AB.


11Canadian Parents for French. (2008). French-second-language education in Ontario: Report and recommendations to the Ontario minister of education. Mississauga, ON: Author.

12Cenoz, J., & Genesee, F. (1998). Psycholinguistic perspectives on multilingualism and multilingual education. Beyond bilingualism:

Multilingualism and multilingual education (pp. 16-32). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. 13Cooper, B.S., Fusarelli, L.D., & Randall, E.V. (2004). Better policies, better schools: Theories and applications. Boston: Allyn &

Bacon. 14Council of Ministers of Education, Canada. (2015). French as a second language in Canada: Potential for collaboration. Toronto,

ON: Author. 15Crawford, D. (1978). Parts of a whole: Building a shared school culture in dual-track immersion schools. Le Journal de l’immersion,

18(3), 28-30. 16Cummins, J. (1998). Immersion education for the millennium: What have we learned from 30 years of research on second language

immersion? In M. R. Childs & R. M. Bostwick (Eds.), Learning through two languages: Research and practice. Second Katoh Gakuen International Symposium on Immersion and Bilingual Education (pp. 34-47). Katoh Gakuen, Japan.

17Cummins, J. (1981). Age on arrival and immigrant second language learning in Canada: A reassessment. Applied Linguistics, 2, 132-149. 18Cummins, J. (1979). Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual children. Review of Educational

Research, 49(2), 222-251. 19Day, E., & Shapson, S. (1990). Integrating formal and functional approaches in language teaching in French immersion: An

experimental study. Paper presented at the World Congress of Applied Linguistics sponsored by the International Association of Applied Linguistics (9th, Thessaloniki, Greece, April 15-21, 1990).

20Day, M.J. (1992). Teacher beliefs about the role of the dual-track French immersion principal. Unpublished master’s thesis. Simon

Fraser University: Vancouver, BC.


21Dicks, J., & Kristmanson, P. (2008) French Immersion: When and why? The state of French second language education in Canada. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Parents for French.

22Doell, L. (2011a). Difference in setting: Compiled research of the comparison in academic achievement between dual-track and

single-track French immersion programs. Vancouver, BC: Canadian Parents for French. 23Doell, L. (2011b). Comparing dual-track and single-track French immersion programs: Does setting matter? The ACIE Newsletter,

14(4). 24Doyle, G. (2017). French immersion in Canada. Retrieved from

http://hrsbstaff.ednet.ns.ca/gdoyle1/secondarypage/french_immersion_in_canada.htm 25Dubé, L., & MacFarlane, A. (1991). Middle immersion: Is it a better option than early or late? Immersion Journal, 14(3), 21-27.

Ottawa, ON: Canadian Association of Immersion Teachers. 26Esser, J., Volek, J., Koenig, D., & De Cock, P. (2014, March). Elementary French immersion review. Toronto, ON: Toronto Catholic

District School Board. 27Genesee, F. (1988). Neuropsychology and second language acquisition. In L. Beebe (Ed.), Issues in second language acquisition (pp.

81- 112. New York: Newbury House Publishers. 28Genesee, F. (1981). A comparison of early and late second language learning. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 13, 115-127. 29Genesee, F. (1978). A longitudinal evaluation of an early immersion school program. Canadian Journal of Education/Revue

canadienne de l'éducation, 3(4), 31-50. 30Genesee, F., & Jared, D. (2008). Literacy development in early French immersion programs. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie

canadienne, 49(2), 140-147. 31Gray, E., Brown, R., & Favaro, P. (2014, September). French as a second language: French immersion program & Core French program: Student enrolment, cohort analyses, and survey results. Mississauga, ON: Peel District School Board.

http://hrsbstaff.ednet.ns.ca/gdoyle1/secondarypage/french_immersion_in_canada.htm


32Grimmett, P., & Echols, F. (2001). Teacher and administrator shortages in changing times: Avoiding the dilemma of saving the train from hijackers to find there’s no train left! Pan-Canadian Education Research Agenda Symposium. Retrieved from http://www.cmec.ca/stats/pcera/symposium2001/grimmett.o.en.pdf

33Guimont, G. (2003). French immersion in different settings: A comparative study of student achievement and exemplary practices in immersion centres versus dual- and multi-track schools. Unpublished master’s thesis. University of Alberta: Edmonton, AB.

34Gunn J. (2011). Halifax regional school board: The delivery of French immersion. Dartmouth, NS: Halifax Regional School Board.

35Halton District School Board. (2016, May). Program viability of elementary English and French programming. Burlington, ON:

Author. 36Hamilton Wentworth District School Board. (2009). Single-track versus dual-track French immersion programs. Hamilton, ON:

Author. 37Hawkins, J. (2014). French second-language programs and student performance. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Parents for French. 38Hepner, S., Nowlan, D., Wright, S. (2012). Calgary Board of Education: Program monitoring and evaluation: French immersion

alternative program: Sam Livingston school. Calgary, AB: Calgary Board of Education. 39Kissau, S. (2003). The relationship between school environment and effectiveness in French immersion. Canadian Journal of

Applied Linguistics, 6(1), 87-104. Fredericton, NB: University of New Brunswick. 40Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press. 41Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. 42Ladyman Consulting Inc. (2011). French immersion program review: School district no. 68 (Nanaimo-Ladysmith). Nanaimo, BC:

Nanaimo-Ladysmith Public Schools.

http://www.cmec.ca/stats/pcera/symposium2001/grimmett.o.en.pdf


43Lapkin, S., MacFarlane, A., & Vandergrift, L. (2006). Teaching French as a second language in Canada: Teachers’ perspectives research report. Retrieved from https://www.caslt.org/files/pd/resources/research/2006-teaching-fsl-in-canada-en.pdf. 44Lapkin, S., Hart, D., & Swain, M. (1992). Early and middle French immersion programs: French language outcomes. Canadian

Modern Language Review, 48(1), 11-40. 45Lapkin, S., Andrew, C.M., Harley, B., Swain, M., & Kamin, J. (1981). The immersion centre and the dual-track school: A study of the

relationship between school environment and achievement in a French immersion program. Canadian Journal of Education, 6(3), 68-90.

46Lazaruk, W. (2007). Linguistic, academic, and cognitive benefits of French immersion. Canadian Modern Language Review, 63(5),

605-628. 47Lepage, J., & Corbeil, J. (2013). The evolution of English-French bilingualism in Canada from 1961 to 2011. Ottawa, ON: Statistics

Canada. 48Mady, C. (2007). Allophone students in French-second-official-language programs: A literature review. Canadian Modern

Language Review, 63(5), 727-760. 49Mady, C., Black, G., & Fulton, K. (2010). Review of Ministry of Education policies affecting equitable access to FSL programs. Retrieved from https://cpf.ca/en/files/Review-of-Ministry-of-Education-Policies-2010.pdf. 50Manitoba Education, Citizen and Youth. (2007). French immersion in Manitoba: A handbook for school leaders. Winnipeg, MB:

Author. 51Mella, P. J. (2009). Every child a better future: Report of the public kindergarten commissioner. Prince Edward Island: The

Government of Prince Edward Island. 52Murphy, E. (2001). The relationship of starting time and cumulative time to second language acquisition and proficiency. The

Morning Watch: Education and Social Analysis, 28(3-4). St. John’s, NL: Memorial University of Newfoundland.

https://www.caslt.org/files/pd/resources/research/2006-teaching-fsl-in-canada-en.pdf


53Netten, J. (2007). Optimal entry point for French immersion. Revue de l’Université de Moncton, 27-35. 54Ontario College of Teachers. (2017). Your qualifications. Retrieved from

http://www.oct.ca/members/know-your-college/your-qualifications. 55Ontario College of Teachers. (2016). Transition to teaching 2016.

Retrieved from http://www.oct.ca/becoming-a-teacher/transition-to-teaching. 56Ontario College of Teachers. (2015). Transition to teaching 2015.

http://www.oct.ca/becoming-a-teacher/transition-to-teaching/previous-reports. 57Ontario Ministry of Education. (2016). Welcoming English language learners into French as a second language programs. Toronto, ON: Author. Retrieved from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/amenagement/welcoming.pdf. 58Ontario Ministry of Education. (2015). Including students with special education needs in French as a second language programs. Toronto, ON: Author. Retrieved from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/amenagement/includingFLS2015.pdf. 59Ontario Ministry of Education. (2013a). The Ontario curriculum, French as a second language: Core French, grades 4-8; Extended

French, grades 4-8; French Immersion, grades 1-8. Toronto, ON: Author. Retrieved from www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/elementary/fsl18-2013curr.pdf.

60Ontario Ministry of Education. (2013b). A framework for French as a second language in Ontario schools, K to 12. Toronto, ON:

Author. Retrieved from www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/amenagement/frameworkFLS.pdf.

61Ontario Ministry of Education. (2001). The Ontario curriculum: French as a second language. Toronto, ON: Author. 62Pan, C. (2014). 2014 Report on the shortage of teachers in French immersion and core French in British Columbia and Yukon.

Vancouver, BC: Canadian Parents for French. 63Parkin, M., Morrison, F., & Watkin, G. (1987). French immersion research relevant to decisions in Ontario. Review and evaluation

bulletins, number 1. Toronto, ON: MGS Publications Services.

http://www.oct.ca/members/know-your-college/your-qualifications

http://www.oct.ca/becoming-a-teacher/transition-to-teaching

http://www.oct.ca/becoming-a-teacher/transition-to-teaching/previous-reports

http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/amenagement/welcoming.pdf

http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/amenagement/includingFLS2015.pdf

http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/elementary/fsl18-2013curr.pdf

http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/amenagement/frameworkFLS.pdf


64Peel District School Board. (2017, April 12). Regular meeting of the board: Results of the 2017-2018 grade one French immersion application process. Mississauga, ON: Author.

65Peel District School Board. (2012, September). Final report of the French immersion review committee elementary. Mississauga,

ON: Author. 66Peel District School Board. (2015). Is French immersion right for my child? Mississauga, ON: Author. 67Peel District School Board Planning and Accommodation Support Services. (2017, February). French immersion review.

PowerPoint Presentation presented at The Elementary French Immersion Program Review Committee meeting, Mississauga, ON.

68Reeder, K., Buntain, J. & Takakuwa, M. (1999). Intensity of L2 instruction and biliterate proficiency in the intermediate years of a

French immersion program. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 56(1), 50-72. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press. 69Rehorick, S. (2004). The critical role of the educational system in creating bilingual citizens: New Brunswick as a microcosm of

Canada. Second Language Education Centre University of New Brunswick. Research document prepared for “Vision and Challenges for the 21st Century: Symposium on Official Languages” for the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, in partnership with Canadian Heritage, Intergovernmental Affairs and Canadian Parents for French.

70Rempel, C. (2016). Early French immersion program review. Burlington, ON: Halton Catholic District School Board. 71Rosansky, E.J. (1975). The critical period for the acquisition of language: Some cognitive developmental considerations. Working Papers on Bilingualism, 6, 92-102. 72Safty, A. (1992). Effectiveness and French immersion: A socio-political analysis. Canadian Journal of education, 17(1), 23-32. 73Simpson, J. (2013). A review of the French immersion program in SD 45. West Vancouver, B.C.: West Vancouver Schools. 74Sinay, E. (2015). Research brief on the characteristics of students in the French as a second language programs at the Toronto

District School Board. (Research Report No. 14/15-27). Toronto, ON: Toronto District School Board.


75Smythe, P.C., Stennett, R.G., & Gardner, R.C. (1974). The best age for beginning foreign language training: Issues, opinions, and facts. Research Bulletin. London, ON: University of Western Ontario.

76Stemler, S. (2001). An introduction to content analysis. Eric Digest. College Park, MD: ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and

Evaluation. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED458218). 77Stern, H.H. (1983). Fundamental concepts of language teaching. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. 78Swain, M. (2000). French immersion research in Canada: Recent contributions to SLA and applied linguistics. Annual Review of

Applied Linguistics, 20, 199-212. 79Swain, M. (1981). Linguistic expectations: Core, extended and immersion programs. Canadian Modern Language Review, 37(3),

486-497. 80Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2008). Beginning French immersion at grade 8. Orbit, 37(2/3), 56-59. 81Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2000). Task-based second language learning: The uses of the first language. Language Teaching Research,

4(3), 251-274. 82Thames Valley District School Board. (2015, February). French immersion program review. London, ON: Author. 83Turnbull, M., Lapkin, S., Hart, D., & Swain, M. (1998). Time on task and immersion graduates' French proficiency. In S. Lapkin (Ed.),

French as a second language education in Canada: Recent empirical studies (pp. 31-55). Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.

84Upper Grand District School Board. (2016). Report of the French review committee 2015. Guelph, ON: Author. 85Veilleux, I., & Bournot-Trites, M. (2005). Standards for the language competence of French immersion teachers: Is there a danger

of erosion? Canadian Journal of Education, 28(3), 489-510.


86Walberg, H., Hase, K., & Rasher, S. (1978). English acquisition as a diminishing function of experience rather than age. TESOL Quarterly, 12(4), 427-437.

87Wesche, M.B. (2002). Early French immersion: How has the original Canadian model stood the test of time? In P. Burmeister, T. Piske, and A. Rohde (Eds.), An Integrated View of Language Development. Papers in Honor of Henning Wode, Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier.

88Wesche, M., MacFarlane, A., & Towes-Janzen, M. (1996). Comparative outcomes and impacts of early, middle and late entry French

immersion options: Review of recent research and annotated bibliography. Ottawa, ON: Ottawa Board of Education. 89Willms, J. D. (2008). The case for universal French instruction. Policy Brief. Canadian Research Institute for Social Policy.

Fredericton, NB: University of New Brunswick. 90Wiss, C. (1989). Early French immersion may not be suitable for every child. The Canadian Modern Language Review,

45(3), 517-529. 91York Region District School Board. (2012, June). FSL review report. Markham, ON: Author.

elementary french immersion program review · the overall goal for any french immersion program is...

Documents