7:00 PM – 7:20 PM
Open House
7:20 PM – 8:30 PM
Presentation of French Review
Committee Report, including:
• Next Steps
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Opportunity for Questions
8:30 PM – 9:00 PM
Open House - Opportunity for
Feedback, Sticky-Note
Suggestions and Follow Up
Questions
Report of the French Review Committee – 2015
PLN:15-30
Centennial CVI
March 30, 2016
www.ugdsb.on.ca/frenchreview
The Challenge
 French as a Second Language programs in the
UGDSB, particularly the French Immersion program,
have enjoyed success.
 Increasing enrolment demand, especially in FI, has
led to:
 the need for frequent boundary reviews,
 concerns regarding qualified staffing availability,
increasing transportation costs,
 geographical inequities, and
 increased accommodation pressures
Goals of the French Review
1. To continue to improve the effectiveness of delivery models and instruction in FSL
in the UGDSB as identified in the 3 year UGDSB’s French plan. 2. To articulate the UGDSB values and beliefs regarding French language
instruction. 3. To create a sustainable, cost effective delivery model for French Immersion in the
UGDSB. 4. To generate a range of strategic options and recommendations, by December 31,
2015, for consideration by the UGDSB to better manage the demand for FI within
fiscal and accommodation realities. 5. To create a long term FI delivery plan, integrated within the Board’s long term
accommodation plan, taking into account geographical differences and
accommodation needs across the UGDSB for all students and their families. In
this way placement and location can become more predictable and transparent
for all stakeholders. 6. To ensure equity of access and opportunity to French Immersion and English
track that respects geographical differences and home school locations for all
students.
7. To develop a comprehensive communication plan to ensure that all stakeholders
are kept informed. Timeline
January 2015
Report identifying need to undertake a
French Immersion management strategy.
March 2015
French Review terms of reference approved.
May to November 2015
French Review Committee met
December 2015
Report and recommendations delivered to
Director of Education
January 2016
Report and recommendations presented to
Trustees
French Review Committee
 Committee was tasked with developing effective
strategies to mitigate and manage issues to ensure
sustainability and viability of all FSL instruction for
UGDSB students and their families.
 32 members
 6 trustees + 1 student trustee
 7 parent representatives
 Principals (elementary & secondary, English & FI)
 Teachers (English and FI)
 Unions (elementary & secondary)
 Board staff & facilitator
Values and Beliefs
Equity of access and opportunity for French as a
Second Language instruction, as well as English
instruction must be achieved in a manner that:
 respects geographical differences across the district
 mitigates accommodation realities across the district
 ensures quality and sustainable programs and
 operates within the available Ministry of Education,
French as a Second Language funding
Values and Beliefs
FSL Instruction:
 is for all students;
 provides significant cognitive and academic benefits for
students;
 honours Canada’s bilingual status;
 creates plurilingual competence;
 promotes bilingualism, which is an asset for students;
 encourages global awareness and the understanding of
other cultures;
 can improve and expand employment opportunities for
students.
French as a Second Language
3-Year Plan
Areas of focus:
1. increase student confidence, proficiency, and
achievement;
2. increase the percentage of students studying FSL
until graduation; and
3. increase student, educator, parent and community
engagement.
Report & Recommendations
 No easy solution.
 Board is at a critical juncture linked to accommodation
and staffing needs that requires strategic and intentional
action.
 Recommendations deal with the realities that need to be
addressed to deliver quality instruction as identified by
the committee.
 All the recommendations are inextricably linked in an
integrated and coordinated manner.
 At the heart of the recommendations is to do everything
possible to support the highest quality of learning,
instruction and success for UGDSB students.
What wasn’t in the recommendations
 It is important to note that:
 there was no committee support to change
transportation to FI school sites.
 there was a clear understanding and support for
starting FI as early as possible
 every student currently enrolled in FI could continue in
FI
Provincial trends resulting from
increased FI enrolment
 significant accommodation pressures causing multiple






boundary changes leading to a lack of predictability for
families;
inability to recognize French immersion as a rationale for
capital projects;
significant transportation costs not recognized for this "optional
program";
a lack of sufficient numbers of qualified French teachers and
ECEs;
limiting core French to 600 hours of instruction to begin in
Grade 4 rather than starting in Grade 1;
maintaining English track viability in dual track schools;
relocating English track students out of neighbourhood
schools to accommodate French immersion.
Historical Context
Board currently operates:
 11 elementary dual track schools
 5 FI centres.
 All FI centres are located in City of Guelph.
 New FI centre building scheduled to open 2016/17
(Couling students currently holding at Tytler PS).
Since 2008:
 Approximately 2,300 FI students have been moved
 7 boundary reviews
 5 of the 9 FDK driven boundary reviews were FI related
 1 accommodation review involving FI schools.
Elementary Enrolment Trends
Total Elementary
Enrolment
Total Elementary FI
Enrolment
UGDSB Historic Enrolment
Elementary
25000 22650
UGDSB Historic Enrolment
Elementary FI
22171
5000
20000
4000
15000
3000
3916
2225
10000
2000
5000
1000
0
0
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
JK/SK Percentage in FI
Percentage of JK/SK Students in French Immersion
30%
25%
25%
26%
23%
20%
15%
21%
16%
16%
17%
21%
18%
10%
5%
0%
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
JK/SK % FI
2011
2012
2013
2014
Elementary
Province
School
Year
20072008
20082009
20092010
20102011
20112012
20122013
20132014
20142015
Secondary
UGDSB
FI Enrolment
FI Participation
Rate as % of total
enrolment in
English schools
UGDSB FI
Enrolment
(nominal)
FI Participation
Rate as % of
total enrolment
113,374
8.69%
2322
117,314
9.11%
125,008
Province
UGDSB
FI Enrolment
FI Participation
Rate as % of total
enrolment in
English schools
UGDSB FI
Enrolment
(nominal)
FI Participation
Rate as % of
total enrolment
10.29%
19,682
2.85%
--
--
2436
10.91%
19,718
2.85%
--
--
9.80%
2598
11.85%
21,420
3.09%
--
--
132,722
10.45%
2828
12.92%
22,510
3.28%
--
--
141,113
11.10%
3050
13.97%
23,522
3.49%
591
4.86%
150,687
11.84%
3359
15.28%
24,208
3.67%
570
4.76%
--
--
3613
16.45%
--
--
576
4.90%
--
--
3916
17.66%
--
--
587
5.10%
UGDSB vs. Provincial Trend
Elementary FI Projection
UGDSB Elementary FI Enrolment Growth
(with % Overall Enrolment)
7000
23.7%
6000
20.8%
5000
4000
3000
15.3%
10.3%
2000
1000
0
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Secondary Enrolment History
Total Secondary Enrolment Total Secondary FI Enrolment
UGDSB Historic Enrolment
Secondary
13500
UGDSB Historic Enrolment
Secondary FI
700
12000
600
10500
9000
500
7500
400
6000
300
4500
200
3000
1500
100
0
0
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
2011
2012
2013
2014
Secondary FI Projection
UGDSB Secondary FI Enrolment Growth
1400
9.6%
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
4.7%
5.8%
Recruitment, Hiring and Retention
 growing concern regarding the ability to hire
sufficient numbers of FSL teachers
 started the last four school years having unfilled
vacancies for FSL contract and long term occasional
(LTO) positions
 undermines the quality and sustainability of FSL
programs
 recognized by parents and affecting the level of
satisfaction with FSL instruction
FSL Qualifications
 Teachers must have teacher education
qualification(s) to be considered for a position in a
school board.
 FSL teachers require additional qualification - FSL
Part 1, as a minimum.
 Due to demand, majority of new FSL teachers are
new to the profession and inexperienced classroom
teachers.
 Attracting support staff with a proficiency in French
language is a significant challenge.
New two-year teacher education
program
Shift to two-year teacher to reduce intake numbers by
about half.
Years
2008 to 2011
2012 and 2013
2014 and 2015
2016
2017
New teachers per year
12,138
10,102
9,600 (forecast)
2,000 (forecast)
6,000 (forecast)
New Teachers
French-language (2013
Ontario faculties percentage)
Potential Pool of Frenchlanguage graduates
2016
2,000
13%
260
2017
6,000
13%
780
Survey
 Open from October 2, 2015 to October 31, 2015
 1,623 individual responses
 representing over 2,800 students across the
jurisdiction
 49% of responses from FI parents/guardians
 46% from English track parents/guardian
 remaining 5% have students in multiple tracks
Common Survey Comments
 interest in earlier core French instruction
 specific local concerns
 overcrowding at dual track schools
 repeated reviews and moves
 concerns about the quality of Core French instruction
and FI instruction
 high school program concerns ranging from the lack
of course options to the quality of teachers
Grade 1 Entry
 This scenario is not an option that is currently available.
 Memo from the Deputy Minister Georg Zegarac dated
June 26, 2014 informs:
"specifically, the regulatory amendments . . . exempt single track French immersion
schools with a Grade 1 entry point from the obligation to offer FDK and exempt single track
French immersion schools with a kindergarten entry point from the obligation to offer FDK
to junior kindergarten students, if the board policy relating to single track French
immersion entry points was in place as of June 26, 2014.” (emphasis added)
 These regulatory changes were intended to not obligate
a board to offer FDK in a school whose organization was
for example Grade 3-6
 School organizations to remain in place as of June 26,
2014.
JK Cap Scenario
Cap scenario for the UGDSB assumes that the cap:
 would begin in 2017
 was calculated based on 25% of the board’s total
projected 2017/18 JK enrolment
 does not fluctuate with the change in total JK enrolment.
 has been modelled to remain as a constant number
across the projection period
 has been apportioned to each school offering FI and the
cap numbers at the school level vary depending on the
school’s OTG capacity, the grade structure and feeder
school structure unique to each school
JK Cap FI Enrolment Comparison
Total FI Enrolment
7000
JK FI
Cap
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
JK FI Cap
2019
2020
Status Quo
2021
2022
2023
2024
JK FI Enrolment Comparison
Enrolment
Cap
Status Quo
JK FI
JK FI
CAP
2014
2017
2019
2024
Diff. 2017
Diff. 2019
Diff. 2024
349
398
438
455
489
-89
-106
-140
Centre Wellington
50
39
51
54
56
-1
-4
-6
Guelph-Eramosa
30
29
27
30
31
3
0
-1
Erin
35
21
29
29
30
6
6
5
North Wellington
25
27
23
24
25
2
1
0
Orangeville
Dufferin
90
89
97
101
108
-7
-11
-18
579
603
665
693
739
-86
-114
-160
Guelph
Total
JK FI Participation Rate Comparison
JK Enrolment Cap
Status Quo
2017
2019
2024
2017
2019
2024
Guelph
30%
29%
28%
37%
38%
39%
Centre Wellington
20%
19%
18%
20%
20%
20%
Guelph-Eramosa
43%
40%
36%
40%
39%
38%
Erin
49%
49%
46%
41%
40%
40%
North Wellington
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
Orangeville/ Dufferin
15%
14%
14%
16%
16%
17%
École Arbour Vista PS (FI)
Enrolment Comparison
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Status Quo
JK FI Cap
OTG
Portable Capacity
Sir Isaac Brock PS (ET)
Enrolment Comparison
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Status Quo
JK FI Cap
OTG
Advantages of Cap
 Cap has the greatest impact on reducing enrolment
pressure
 Cap does not address FI enrolment issues at every
school in the Board i.e. Orangeville/Dufferin
 Results in predictable and sustainable enrolment.
 Future boundary or grade level changes to be made
which would address overcapacity issues in several
schools without the need for repeated reviews.
Instructional Time - Current
 Ministry standard for FI is a
UGDSB Standard
minimum of 50% instruction
time per grade.
 Staffing challenges mean
that the board is not always
able to have a French
speaking ECE in every
kindergarten class.
 JK to Grade 2 for 100%
 Grade 3 & 4 for 80%
 Grade 5 for 75%
 Grade 6 for 70
 Grades 7 & 8 for 50%
Instructional Time Options
Option 1 - Differentiated
Option 2 – 50%
 JK-2 reduced to 84% to
 50% French & 50% English
correspond with amount of
planning time in English.
 Increasing English instruction
by grades based on planning
time “blocks”.
instruction JK-8
 Based on 2014 status quo
would reduce teacher demands
by 42%.
 Grades 3-6 two English
“blocks”
 Maintain 50/50 in Grades 7/8
 Based on 2014 status quo
would reduce teacher demands
by 13%.
It is recommended:
1.
that Memo PLN: 15-30 “Report of the French Review Committee – 2015” dated
January 12, 2016 be received.
2.
that the UGDSB send a written request to the Ontario Public School Boards’
Association, (OPSBA), to advocate on behalf of English public school boards for; a
comprehensive provincial review of FSL instructional opportunities, qualified French
teacher availability, and current funding levels in an effort to alleviate the significant
accommodation pressures and more accurately reflect the current reality of
parent/guardian choice in a plurilingual society.
3.
that the UGDSB explore the concept of starting core French in Grade 1 in conjunction
with an FSL review by the Ministry of Education as outlined in Recommendation 1.
4.
that once a strategy is approved by the UGDSB for elementary French immersion, the
French Review Committee will begin a review of secondary FSL as soon as possible
and submit a report with recommendations for consideration by the UGDSB no later
than June 30, 2017.
5.
that the Human Resources Department review and expand its recruitment practices as
it relates to French language teachers and support staff ( e.g. ECEs, EAs).
6.
that the Human Resources Department advance the dates of the recruitment, posting
and interviewing process for French language teachers.
Approved / Not Approved
Recommendations - continued
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
that the Human Resources Department actively pursue increasing teacher and ECE
practicum placements in the board for candidates with French language proficiency.
that the Human Resources Department explore pool hiring to attract and retain
qualified French language teachers.
that the Human Resources Department work in conjunction with the local teacher
unions to explore the potential of newly hired qualified French language teachers
committing to 5 years of French language instruction in the Board.
that the Human Resources Department hire an individual, on contract (e.g. a retired
principal), to work with UGDSB staff to develop a process to support recruitment and
the hiring of qualified French language teachers, including occasional teachers and
support staff. As part of this work, other school boards will be canvassed to identify
any exemplary practices that could be adapted and incorporated into the UGDSB
process.
that the UGDSB work with OPSBA to advocate for the Ministry of Education and the
Deans of the Faculties of Education and Colleges to assist in addressing the number
of teacher and support staff available for French language instruction at both the
elementary and secondary level.
Approved / Not Approved
Recommendations - continued
12. that effective September 1, 2017,JK be confirmed as the only entry point for new French
immersion students into the French immersion program in the Upper Grand District School
Board.
13. that a differentially applied JK enrolment cap, based on school capacity and historical
enrolment trends together with a reduction in French instructional time to 84% for JK-2,
68% for Grades 3-5, and 50% for Grades 6-8 be placed on JK French immersion programs
in the jurisdiction totalling 579 students, effective for the 2017/18 school year.
14. that before November 2016, prior to kindergarten registration, a random selection process
be developed as part of the enrolment cap to create a fair and transparent method for
student entry into the French immersion program.
15. that there be a regular monitoring of enrolment in all FI programs and reported to the
Board via the Elementary Identified Schools Report, and that the balance between
English track and French immersion enrolment in dual track schools be monitored
through the annual Elementary Identified Schools Report.
Approved / Not Approved
Recommendations - continued
16. that the enrolment cap be reviewed no later than December 31, 2019 and every 5
years thereafter, unless significant changes in demographics, enrolment or school
utilization would indicate an earlier review.
17. that the French immersion retention rate be monitored and reported through the
annual Elementary Identified Schools Report.
18. that future elementary and secondary French immersion accommodation needs and
locations be considered during the development of the Board’s long term capital and
accommodation plan.
19. that appropriate accommodation or boundary review processes be undertaken to
address French immersion accommodation needs, as the Board deems appropriate
and in accordance with Board policy, to address over-capacity or underutilized
schools.
Approved / Not Approved
Next Steps
March 2016
Four (4) Public Information Sessions being held
throughout jurisdiction.
April 15, 2016
Deadline for feedback
May 2016
Board to consider approval of remaining
recommendations.
Feedback
 Feedback will be provided to Trustees prior to them
making a decision on the remaining recommendations.
 Feedback should focus on suggestions.
 e.g. siblings should be given priority in a random selection
process
 Feedback can be submitted:
 Online
 On blue feedback form (available tonight or printable PDF
online)
 Use sticky notes to respond to targeted questions on
display boards.
Why aren’t there details about the
random selection process?
 Until the Trustees decide whether or not to implement a
JK enrolment cap - can’t be determined how a random
selection process will work.
 Recommendation 14 reads:
“that before November 2016, prior to kindergarten registration, a
random selection process be developed as part of the enrolment cap
to create a fair and transparent method for student entry into the
French immersion program.”
 If a cap is approved, will have to consider how siblings,
out of jurisdiction, out of area, and other students are
treated under a cap.
 Staff will also have to consider how movement within and
into the jurisdiction will be managed.
Why wasn’t high school FSL
considered in the final report?
 The French Review Committee discussed the issues
faced by secondary FSL.
 There are many similar issues related to recruitment,
hiring and retention of FSL teachers.
 Until there is a strategy to address issues at the
elementary level, it is difficult to develop a high school
strategy.
 Recommendation 4 addressed
“that once a strategy is approved by the UGDSB for elementary
French immersion, the French Review Committee will begin a
review of secondary FSL as soon as possible and submit a report
with recommendations for consideration by the UGDSB
no later than June 30, 2017.”
I want my child to attend an Orangeville area
high school for FI, when can I expect this to
be considered by the UGDSB?
 The outcomes of the French Review will inform the
development of a long term accommodation plan.
 Boundary or accommodation review processes may
be considered as an outcome to the long term plan.
A number of parents want access to FI
in Shelburne, why wasn’t this
considered as part of the review?
 The review does identify accommodation issues in
the Orangeville/Dufferin area which persist
regardless of any enrolment management strategy
proposed.
 Other board processes are required before any
decisions are made to start FI in a new location or
change boundaries.
How was the composition of the
French Review Committee decided?
 Trustees determined parent representation to mirror trustee
representation, with one additional Guelph parent
representative.
 Local Trustees identified parents willing to sit on the committee
and these individuals became representatives for the
communities noted.




Four (4) from Guelph,
One (1) from Orangeville,
One (1) from Centre/North Wellington, and
One (1) from East Wellington,
 Elementary and secondary school principals, teachers and
union presidents were appointed to the committee and staff
sat on the committee, or were brought in as resources, as
required.
What is role of the French Review
Committee and Staff now that the
final report has been submitted?
 The French Review Committee completed its work in




December 2015.
Staff presented the final report on January 12, 2016.
As directed by the Board, staff is conducting four
public information sessions on the report and its
recommendations.
Staff is collecting feedback from each of those
sessions and online and collating it so it can be
shared with Trustees and the public.
Neither the Committee nor Staff have a role in the
decision-making.
What happens to the feedback
submitted?
Written feedback submitted at the public information
sessions, returned to the Board or submitted online
until April 15, 2016 will be shared with Trustees and
posted online. Staff uses feedback to inform updates
to the FAQ document.
Will smaller English track JK classes
allow for increases in the
recommended JK FI caps?
 No. Smaller cohorts of students in the English track
do not alleviate the FI staffing pressures faced by the
Board.
 Smaller cohorts of English students may reduce
some of the accommodation pressures faced in dual
track schools, these smaller cohorts also increase
instability and create viability issues for
local/neighbourhood English track programs without
resolving quality or staffing issues related to FI.
What has been done since some
recommendations were approved
on January 26th?
 There has always been active recruitment of French
teachers in the UGDSB, however, in response to the
approved French Review recommendations, the Human
Resources (HR) Department is taking a more direct and
proactive role to find additional qualified French teachers.
 HR has made contact with all the faculties of education in
Ontario and attended several job fairs and informal
presentations to promote French teaching in the UGDSB.
 HR is working with faculties of education to get more
student teachers in French classrooms next year.
 HR is working to add French teachers to the occasional
teacher roster and the permanent teachers may be hired
from that roster.
What has been done, continued…
 It is very difficult to recruit Early Childhood Educators (ECEs) and
Education Assistants (EAs) in both English and French.
However, a team is recruiting English and French ECEs and HR
is investigating a process for EA recruitment.
 A former FI Principal is leading the recruitment of French teachers
and developing a formal recruitment process for the Board for
future years.
 We have canvassed other Boards about their processes and are
incorporating many of their practices to augment our current
activities.
 The Planning Department is preparing the annual Elementary
Identified Schools Reports for release in April. In accordance with
Recommendations 15 and 17, these reports will include the
requested FI enrolment information, balance between English
track and French immersion enrolment in dual track schools, as
well as reporting on retention rates.