Final Report
Review of French as a Second Language Programs,
Elementary Phase
Prepared By
Quality Assurance
September 2007
Final Report: Review of FSL Programs, Elementary Phase
© 2007 Ottawa-Carleton District School Board
Copyright of this work is owned by the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board. No reproduction in whole
or in part may be made without express authorization of the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board.
Quality Assurance
Final Report: Review of FSL Programs, Elementary Phase
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Ad Hoc Committee Members
Jennifer McKenzie, Trustee – Zone 10, Chair of the FSL Review Ad Hoc Committee
Cathy Curry, Trustee – Zone 2
David Moen, Trustee – Zone 12
Members of the FSL Review Support Team and Contributors of Information for this Report
Jennifer Adams, Superintendent of Curriculum
Lynn Laide, Administrative Assistant to Superintendent Adams
Joan Oracheski, Manager, Quality Assurance
Susan MacDonald, Principal, Curriculum Services
David Dancey, Finance Officer, Finance
Lisa Gowans, Planning & Statistical Analyst, Planning
Steve McKibbin, Research Officer, Quality Assurance
Bill McNeely, Human Resources Officer, Human Resources
Johanne Proulx, FSL Consultant, Curriculum Services
Yasmin Sankar Khan, Research Officer, Quality Assurance
Tara Shahparaki, ESL/ELD Consultant, Curriculum Services
Lorraine Whitby, Learning Support Consultant, Special Education
Sandra Stewart, Principal, W.O. Mitchell Elementary School
Jocelyne Beaulieu, Principal, Le Phare Elementary School
Evelyn Daghofer, Principal, Bayshore Public School
Nicole Charette, Teacher, Dunlop Public School
May Tannous, Teacher, Agincourt Public School
Diane Richard, Teacher, Featherstone Drive Public School
Suzanne Fournier, Teacher, Glashan Public School
Quality Assurance
i
Final Report: Review of FSL Programs, Elementary Phase
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .....................................................................................................................
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................................
ii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................
iv
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................
1
METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................................
1
2
2
2
3
4
4
Analysis of Survey Data.......................................................................................................
Characteristics of Respondents.............................................................................................
School Organization ...............................................................................................
Language of Instruction ..........................................................................................
Special Education/English Language Learning Supports.......................................
Language Spoken at Home .....................................................................................
EFFECTIVE FSL DELIVERY MODELS AND INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES .........................................
Types of Programs................................................................................................................
Core French.............................................................................................................
Extended French/French Immersion.......................................................................
Intensive French......................................................................................................
4
5
5
6
8
Motivating Factors to Enrol in/be Successful in French Immersion Programs....................
9
Teaching Requirements/Qualifications ................................................................................
French Proficiency of the Teacher..........................................................................
Professional Development Opportunities ...............................................................
9
10
11
Learning Environment..........................................................................................................
Pedagogical Considerations ....................................................................................
Interaction with Francophones................................................................................
Language of Instruction ..........................................................................................
Resource Allocation/Supports ................................................................................
School Organization ...............................................................................................
12
13
14
14
15
16
Student Outcomes.................................................................................................................
Language Proficiency .............................................................................................
Academic Achievement ..........................................................................................
Employment/Work..................................................................................................
17
17
19
24
Section Summary .................................................................................................................
25
EQUITABLE ACCESS TO FSL PROGRAMS & VIABILITY AND SUSTAINABILITY IN STUDENT
ENROLMENTS ....................................................................................................................................
Characteristics of Students Enrolled in FSL Programs ........................................................
Socioeconomics ......................................................................................................
Gender.....................................................................................................................
Students with Special Needs...................................................................................
English Language Learners ....................................................................................
Quality Assurance
28
28
29
29
30
30
ii
Final Report: Review of FSL Programs, Elementary Phase
Enrolment Patterns ...............................................................................................................
31
Accessibility of FSL Programs.............................................................................................
31
Attrition/Retention Rates......................................................................................................
31
Split-Grade Classes ..............................................................................................................
32
Section Summary .................................................................................................................
33
COST EFFECTIVENESS .......................................................................................................................
Revenues ..............................................................................................................................
34
34
Costs .....................................................................................................................................
36
Section Summary .................................................................................................................
36
CONCLUSIONS....................................................................................................................................
37
.....................................................................................................................................
40
REFERENCES
APPENDIX A: RESULTS OF THE STAKEHOLDER SURVEYS
APPENDIX B: FSL PROGRAM OFFERINGS IN OTHER DISTRICTS
APPENDIX C: INFORMATION/DATA PROVIDED BY THE PLANNING DIVISION
Quality Assurance
iii
Final Report: Review of FSL Programs, Elementary Phase
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In April 2006, Education Committee received the first in a series of reports seeking approval for a French
Immersion review in the Ottawa Carleton District School Board (OCDSB, 2006). In December 2006, the
French as a second Language (FSL) Review Ad Hoc Committee was established and tasked with
developing a framework for a review of FSL programs in the district. It was agreed that the review would
focus on all FSL programs (i.e., immersion and core) and would initially focus on key aspects at the
elementary panel (i.e., entry points, locations of programs, and program framework). As such, the
objectives for this initial phase of the FSL review were:
•
to improve the effectiveness of delivery and instruction for FSL programs;
•
to ensure that students throughout the school district have equitable access to FSL
programs;
•
to ensure that FSL programs have viable and sustainable enrolments; and,
•
to ensure that FSL programs are cost effective.
METHODOLOGY
As part of the review process, staff has conducted a review of the literature that is relevant to these goals
and objectives. In addition, all elementary principals, vice-principals and teachers were invited to
complete an on-line survey; a random sample of parents of both elementary and secondary students were
mailed a paper-and-pencil survey asking similar questions as those posed to staff, but in relation to a
specific child. Return rates ranged from 26% for parents of secondary students to 58% for elementary
school administrators; the characteristics associated with the various respondent groups (e.g., school
organization, language of instruction/program offerings) indicate that the results from the surveys are
representative of the opinions of elementary administrators, teachers, and parents throughout our district.
EFFECTIVE FSL DELIVERY MODELS AND INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES
One of the primary objectives of the FSL review is to improve the effectiveness of delivery and
instruction in FSL programs. The Ontario Ministry of Education (MOE) outlines a number of program
options that are available to elementary and secondary students within the publicly funded school system
in Ontario (Ministry of Education, 2001), including core French, extended French, and French immersion.
Although curriculum documents produced by the Ministry describe the purpose of each of these options
and specific requirements (e.g., time allocation) there is some latitude given to school districts to provide
programming that meets the particular needs of their students. As part of this review, therefore, it was
important to seek opinions from various stakeholder groups regarding various aspects of the current FSL
program delivery options. The following is a synopsis of the feedback received:
• Core French: Junior kindergarten was the most frequently selected entry point for the core
French program. Parents were more likely than staff to feel that more time should be devoted to
French instruction and that there should be longer instructional blocks.
• French immersion: The OCDSB is the only school board in Ontario to offer three separate entry
points for French immersion. When asked to rate the entry points in terms of preference, the
majority of teachers and parents preferred EFI, whereas school administrators were more likely to
choose MFI; LFI was the least preferred entry point across all four groups. When the elementary
parent group was further divided according to the program in which their child was enrolled,
parents of students in EFI and MFI were more likely to prefer the entry point they selected for
their son/daughter, whereas the majority of parents of LFI students preferred an EFI entry point.
Generally speaking, respondents seem satisfied with the grade level at which students currently
enter EFI, MFI, and LFI.
Quality Assurance
iv
Final Report: Review of FSL Programs, Elementary Phase
•
Motivating factors to enroll in/be successful in a French immersion program: All stakeholder
groups identified: the ability to adjust to challenging situations, first language skills other than
French, work habits, family support, emotional development, interest in learning French, and
social skills as being important. Parents also indicated that the availability of the program in their
local school was important, while French being spoken in the home and access to child care were
not. Feedback with respect to transportation was mixed, with approximately equal proportions of
parents indicating that it was/was not important.
Teaching Requirements/Qualifications
French Proficiency of the Teacher. Currently, there are no national benchmarks for minimum French
proficiency requirements for FSL teachers, nor is there consistency in the language measures used by
universities and school districts in their hiring practices. In 2005, over half of the school districts across
Canada reported a shortage of French immersion teachers. In fact, the Ontario College of Teachers issues
more letters of permission to uncertified instructors than any other teacher-governing council in Canada.
Research has shown that proficiency of the teacher in the target language is critical for program success,
particularly in terms of being able to: (i) plan and implement language programs and teach curriculum in
specific content areas; (ii) model language for students; and, (iii) provide corrective feedback on
grammatical errors.
Professional Development Opportunities. Nationally, one of the most frequently cited challenges for FSL
teachers is the lack of PD opportunities. Some areas that have been identified as requiring further support
from school districts to enhance teachers’ knowledge of effective second-language teacher methodologies
include: (i) experientially-based teaching approaches; (ii) designing more interactive classroom activities
with a focus on communication; (iii) providing students with more opportunities for contact with
francophone speakers/culture; (iv) better integration of grammar instruction with content; and, (v) more
student-centred learning.
Learning Environment
Pedagogical Considerations. Research suggests different teaching strategies are typically used in EFI
(i.e., communicative) compared to LFI (i.e. formative). Further, in many immersion programs, language
models are limited to teachers, their anglophone peers and the school context – an environment that often
leads to semantic confusion and comprehension difficulties.
Interaction with Francophones. Research suggests that frequent interactions with francophones may lead
to a better understanding of non-standard variants of formal French. Indeed, francophone teachers could
provide students with an environment that is less prone to communication errors as well as a wider range
of options in French conversation as a result of their authentic real-life experiences.
Language of Instruction. It’s generally believed that subjects such as history and geography should be
taught in French because they better lend themselves to oral communication than math and science. A
review of practices in other school boards and opinions provided through the stakeholder surveys do in
fact tend to support this belief. Nevertheless, researchers have found that the effectiveness of a subject
being taught in French is influenced more by the pedagogical approach of the teacher.
Resource Allocation/Supports. There is concern amongst FSL teachers across Canada regarding: (i) the
amount and availability of French resource materials; (ii) the need for French speaking teachers with
specialist qualifications in special education; and, (iii) the need for the staffing allocation for special needs
resource teachers to be equivalent to that for the regular English program. Responses from OCDSB
administrator and teacher surveys suggest that while parent volunteers and peer mentoring supports were
available at their site, Special Education Learning Centres, Learning Support Teachers, and Educational
Assistants were not.
Quality Assurance
v
Final Report: Review of FSL Programs, Elementary Phase
School Organization. As part of the stakeholder surveys, OCDSB respondents were asked to indicate
which type of school organization (i.e. single track – English or French immersion vs. dual track –
English and French immersion) they thought was best for student learning. Across all four groups, the
dual track model was the most frequently cited option in that it provides a more balanced learning
environment, it is less disruptive to students should they wish to change programs, it provides
parents/students with more program options from which to choose in order to best meet their needs, and it
allows for greater access to learning support services for students with special needs and greater
opportunity for staff collaboration.
Student Outcomes
Language Proficiency. Immersion programs expose students to more authentic use of language, typically
resulting in higher levels of communicative competence compared to their peers who receive French as
the object of study (i.e., core French). Research has demonstrated that proficiency is closely related to the
amount of time spent learning the language and the level of intensity, and that EFI tends to produce better
outcomes with respect to speaking ability and listening skills when compared to later entry points.
Research has also shown, however, that MFI learning outcomes could approximate those of the EFI
programs if a sufficient amount of French instructional hours were delivered. In terms of writing skills,
students in the MFI and LFI programs tend to perform better on some tests focusing on the mechanical
aspects of writing. When writing is scored using a more holistic approach, EFI students tend to perform
better. When asked to indicate which entry point they felt offered students the best opportunity to develop
their skills in French, most respondents chose EFI or MFI.
Although there is no national consensus for language proficiency benchmarks or assessment measures for
the French skills of students graduating from high school, work is currently underway to investigate this
possibility. Despite the difficulty in defining and measuring French proficiency, the federal government
has reported that 24% of Canadian secondary school graduates are considered to be bilingual.
When OCDSB parents were asked to identify the level of French proficiency they expected their child to
achieve upon completion of an immersion program, elementary parents were more likely to expect a
higher level of proficiency in reading, writing, and oral communications compared to parents of
secondary students.
Academic Achievement. Research has repeatedly found that an immersion environment does not adversely
affect academic achievement. In fact, although the introduction of a French immersion program will
initially result in deficits in subject-matter learning and a temporary lag in English development, the
extent of the delay will be temporary and will depend on the amount of prior learning in a core French
program and the intensity of the immersion program in the first two years. Further, studying a second
language actually facilitates the development of cognitive flexibility, creativity, and meta-linguistic
awareness – skills that are beneficial to all students, including those who have been identified with special
needs and English Language Learners.
Research studies that have used EQAO results as a measure of English language literacy skills have found
that students in school districts with the most intensive EFI programs demonstrated weaker skills in grade
3 compared to students in less intensive programs, but by grade 6 the differences in reading, writing and
mathematics disappeared.
Employment/work. One of the main reasons parents consider an immersion program for their child is the
belief that the programs are enriching and advantageous for their child’s future career path. Similarly,
students are motivated to register in FI in hopes of providing better access to jobs. A study conducted
through the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE) that looked at bilingual job opportunities in
the metropolitan Toronto area, however, found that while there were many advertised positions for
bilingual high-school graduates, employers have a tendency to prefer hiring university graduates for these
Quality Assurance
vi
Final Report: Review of FSL Programs, Elementary Phase
positions. Further, French language skills were not rated as important for promotion within these
organizations, and there was skepticism that graduates of school-based immersion programs were not
suitable candidates for bilingual positions. Additional research into this phenomenon in the Ottawa region
may be warranted given the bilingual nature of the area and the widespread popularity of French
immersion programs within the region.
Many school boards in Ontario that offer an immersion program award additional certification to students
who complete a specific number of credits in French. Over the past three years, 35-42% of students
enrolled in an immersion program in grade 8 have earned either an immersion or an extended French
certificate upon graduation from high school.
EQUITABLE ACCESS TO FSL PROGRAMS &
VIABILITY AND SUSTAINABILITY IN STUDENT ENROLMENTS
Equity of access to immersion programs is a major challenge for school districts in Ontario, primarily due
to the inconsistency of FSL program offerings across districts which impacts on enrollment patterns and
retention rates in immersion programs.
Characteristics of Students Enrolled in FSL Programs
Nationally, immersion programs have typically been viewed as being elitist. Researchers have argued that
while this may have been the case in the initial stages of implementation, EFI typically serves a more
heterogeneous student population in terms of cognitive ability and social background since there is little
knowledge of a child’s academic ability at the age of entry into the program. In MFI and LFI programs,
parental decisions to register their child in immersion tend to be swayed by academic ability – MFI also
tends to be more attractive to parents of immigrant children, whereas LFI tends to attract students that are
of higher academic ability and who are highly motivated.
Socioeconomic Status (SES). National studies have demonstrated a strong relationship between reading
and achievement and SES, with a greater proportion of families of high SES enrolled in immersion
programs compared to non-immersion.
Gender. Information from international assessment data has shown that a greater proportion of girls than
boys are enrolled in immersion programs. Our own statistics provide further evidence of this, with 10%
more girls than boys enrolled in EFI, 14% in MFI, and 26% in LFI.
Students with Special Needs/English Language Learners. Research has also demonstrated that all students
can be successful in an immersion program, given the appropriate supports. Again, district level statistics
show that although there are exceptional students and students for whom English is not their first
language enrolled in each of the elementary program streams, the majority are in an English program and
not in immersion.
Enrolment Patterns
Despite the decline in elementary enrolment in OCDSB schools since October 2001, there has been an
increase in enrolment for students opting for EFI and MFI during the same period.
Accessibility of FSL Programs. All students in the OCDSB have designated schools for English, EFI, and
LFI programs, but not for MFI. Further, the geographic area/boundaries for each of the MFI programs are
significantly larger than those for English, EFI, and LFI. Although students who do not have a designated
MFI school (i.e., those who reside in the southern and eastern-most regions of our jurisdiction) may apply
for a cross-boundary transfer, the current transportation policy does not offer transportation.
Quality Assurance
vii
Final Report: Review of FSL Programs, Elementary Phase
Attrition/Retention Rates. In the OCDSB, students from all three elementary program streams merge into
a common program in secondary school, posing some challenges as a result of the differences in linguistic
compentency among students. According to the federal government, both core French and French
immersion programs experience a high rate of attrition at the high school level as a result of: (i) a lack of
a wide range of course options; (ii) the perception that preparation for university is best done in English;
(iii) a general fatigue from studying in French; and, (iv) teaching methods that do not always promote
active, communicative learning. When it comes to the reporting of attrition rates by program, the research
is mixed with some studies showing higher attrition rates in EFI compared to LFI, and others
demonstrating the reverse trend. Within our own jurisdiction, year-over-year retention rates tend to be
highest in the English program due in part to students exiting immersion programs. Year-over-year
attrition rates in immersion programs, averaged over a 3-year period, are as follows: 6% in EFI, 10% in
MFI, and 7% in LFI. Because the length of the program varies from nine years in EFI to five years in MFI
and two years in LFI, the cohort retention rates based on a 3-year average are: 59% in EFI, 61% in MFI,
and 93% in LFI.
Split-grade Classes. The presence of split-grade classes is often assumed to be an indicator of program
viability/sustainability (i.e., if there are insufficient numbers of students in a particular grade and program
within a school, it may necessitate the merging of multiple grades into a single class). There are other
factors, however, that may result in the decision to create split-grade classes such as student needs,
availability of qualified staff, class size caps, and collective agreements. Like other school districts in
Ontario, the proportion of elementary split-grade classes in the OCDSB is on the rise and is projected to
continue to rise next year. Classes comprised of multiple-grades are most prominent in the Alternative
program followed by the regular English stream and least prominent in MFI.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
Overall, all FI programs promote advanced French language skills. Generally, immersion students that
proceed through to the end of secondary school yield high levels of French proficiency, but not as high as
native French speakers. Within the body of research, it has been suggested that districts should provide a
feasible threshold level of bilingualism for different situations in which one might require two languages
and that perhaps a greater emphasis should be placed on French speaking skills.
There are several factors that influence the particular program and/or framework that a district can offer.
Specifically, the board’s requirements for qualified teaching staff are influenced by teachers French
proficiency levels and professional development needs, pedagogical differences in immersion programs,
interaction with francophones, correct mix of language of instruction within the classroom, and the
availability and allocation of resources and supports for both teachers and students. When determining
French immersion entry point(s), research recommends a focus on equitable and accessible programs for
all students.
Quality Assurance
viii
Final Report: Review of FSL Programs, Elementary Phase
INTRODUCTION
In April 2006, Education Committee received the first in a series of reports seeking approval for a French
Immersion review in the Ottawa Carleton District School Board (OCDSB, 2006). In December 2006, the
French as a second Language (FSL) Review Ad Hoc Committee was established and tasked with
developing a framework for a review of FSL programs in the district. It was agreed that the review would
focus on all FSL programs (i.e., immersion and core) and would initially focus on key aspects at the
elementary panel (i.e., entry points, locations of programs, and program framework). As such, the
objectives for this initial phase of the FSL review were:
•
to improve the effectiveness of delivery and instruction for FSL programs;
•
to ensure that students throughout the school district have equitable access to FSL
programs;
•
to ensure that FSL programs have viable and sustainable enrolments; and,
•
to ensure that FSL programs are cost effective.
METHODOLOGY
As part of the review process, staff has conducted a review of the literature that is relevant to the goals
and objectives identified by the FSL Review Ad Hoc Committee and approved by Board on 31 January
2007. Many of these issues have been under investigation for a number of years and addressed in previous
comprehensive literature reviews (Edwards, 1989 as part of a study conducted in the Carleton Board of
Education; Wesche et al., 1996 as part of a study conducted by the Ottawa Board of Education; Lapkin,
1998). More recent research studies have also been included that provide new evidence in relation to FSL
programs.
In addition to the review of literature, information was gathered from central departments/divisions
within the OCDSB (i.e., Curriculum Services, Finance, Human Resources, Planning, Quality Assurance,
and Special Education), as well as from other school boards in Ontario. Stakeholder surveys of OCDSB
parents, elementary teachers, and elementary administrators helped to provide an understanding of current
perceptions regarding existing FSL programs and suggestions for improvement. The following table
shows the return rates for the various groups surveyed:
Table 1: Return rates for completed surveys
Group
Elementary Principals/VPs
Surveys
Distributed
179
Surveys
Received
104
1161
Return
Rate
58%
Elementary Teachers
3035
38%
Parents/Guardians of Elementary Students
English
Early French Immersion
Middle French Immersion
Late French Immersion
1308
327
327
327
327
623
105
199
160
159
48%
Parents/Guardians of Secondary Students
1278
337
26%
Margin of
Error1
+/- 6.2
+/- 2.3
32%
61%
49%
49%
+/- 3.9
+/-9.6
+/-6.9
+/-7.2
+/-7.0
+/- 5.3
1
The margin of error provides information as to the reliability of survey findings from a random sample of the population under
study. Using the information in the table, therefore, we can be reasonably confident (i.e., 95% of the time, or 19 times out of 20)
that responses from a random sample of parents selected from the same population would fall between +/- 3.9 percentage points.
(e.g., if 43% of elementary parents were in agreement with a particular statement, the response to that question for the entire
elementary parent population would most likely fall between 39% and 47%).
Quality Assurance
1
Final Report: Review of FSL Programs, Elementary Phase
Analysis of Survey Data
Responses to the quantitative components of the stakeholder surveys are reported throughout this
document as frequencies for the four primary respondent groups (i.e., prinicpals/vice-principals, teachers,
elementary parents, and secondary parents). For some questions, frequencies have been reported for subgroups of parents according to the program in which their child is enrolled. For key questions in which
the number of parental responses was sufficient to perform tests of statistical significance, an Analysis of
Variance (ANOVA)2 was performed; significant differences between groups of parents were followed up
by conducting post hoc comparisons using the Scheffé3 method.
Qualitative analyses of the open-ended questions posed to stakeholders on the survey involved the coding
of comments into themes/categories. Only those opinions/ideas that were offered by a sizeable proportion
of respondents have been incorporated into this report – that is, ideas that were given by only a few
individuals from any particular group have not been reported.
Characteristics of Respondents
All respondent groups were asked to provide some general information about themselves to determine
whether or not certain groups of staff or parents were more likely to respond to the survey than others.
School Organization. Half of the principals and vice-principals who responded to the survey indicated
that they were in a school having Junior Kindergarten (JK) through grades 3, 4, 5, or 6; approximately
one-third of administrators reported being in a JK-8 school, and 13.5% reported being in a more
intermediate setting (i.e., grades 4, 6, 7, and/or 8) (OCDSB FSL Survey, Appendix A, Table A-2). These
figures are representative of the elementary administrators across the district (i.e., principals and viceprincipals at schools offering JK through grades 3, 4, 5, or 6 comprise 49% of all elementary
administrators in the district, followed by those at JK-8 schools (37%), and those at grades 4, 6, 7, and/or
8 schools (14%).
Completed surveys were received from parents of students in all grades from JK through grade 12. While
the distribution of parents of secondary students was equally dispersed across grades 9 through 12, the
majority of elementary parents were of students in grades 7 and 8 (39.8%), followed by parents of
students in the junior division (33.6%), and then JK through primary (25.7%) (OCDSB FSL Survey,
Appendix A, Table A-6). These figures indicate that: (i) parents of students in the intermediate grades
were over-represented in our sample compared to the population of students enrolled in grade 7 or 8 (i.e.,
20.5% of OCDSB elementary students are enrolled in grade 7 or 8); and, (ii) parents of students in grades
JK through 3 were under-represented (i.e., 46.4% of elementary students are enrolled in one of these
grades).
2
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) is used to uncover the main and interaction effects of categorical independent variables (called
"factors") on an interval dependent variable. The key statistic in ANOVA is the F-test of difference of group means, testing if the
means of the groups formed by values of the independent variable (or combinations of values for multiple independent variables)
are different enough not to have occurred by chance. If the group means do not differ significantly then it is inferred that the
independent variable(s) did not have an effect on the dependent variable. If the F test shows that overall the independent
variable(s) is (are) related to the dependent variable, then multiple comparison tests of significance are used to explore just which
values of the independent(s) have the most to do with the relationship. www.statisticssolutions.com/ANOVA.htm
3
The Scheffé test is a widely-used method of controlling Type I errors in post hoc testing of differences in group means. This
comparison is a conservative estimate of group differences in that it maintains an experimentwise 0.05 level of significance in the
face of multiple comparisons. www.statisticssolutions.com/ANOVA.htm
Quality Assurance
2
Final Report: Review of FSL Programs, Elementary Phase
The majority of principals/vice-principals (62.5%) reported having knowledge of, or experience teaching,
all grade levels from kindergarten through intermediate compared to 15.2% of teachers. All principals,
vice-principals and teachers reported being at least knowledgeable of the primary and junior divisions
(OCDSB FSL Survey, Appendix A, Table A-4).
Language of Instruction and Program. Close to half of the principals/vice-principals and teachers who
responded to the survey indicated that they were in a school that offers both English and a French
immersion program. The remaining respondents were relatively evenly divided between schools offering
only the English program and those offering only a French Immersion program (OCDSB FSL Survey,
Appendix A, Table A-3). Principals and vice-principals at schools offering both the English and French
immersion program comprise 55% of all elementary administrators in the district, followed by those at
schools offering only the English program (34%), and those at schools offering only a French Immersion
program (11%).
Almost all principals and vice-principals surveyed (91.3%) reported having knowledge of, or experience
teaching, the English program compared to only 54.8% of teachers. Principals and vice-principals were
least knowledgeable of, or had experience with, the middle French immersion program; teacher
respondents were least experienced in both MFI and LFI (OCDSB FSL Survey, Appendix A, Table A5a).
Approximately one-third of elementary parents who responded to the survey had children in the EFI
program, one-quarter in each of MFI and LFI, and only 16.9% had children in the English program. Given
that equal sampling across the four groups was required to produce reliable results at this level of reporting,
these figures suggest parents of elementary EFI students were more likely to respond to the survey than
parents of elementary students in the English program. Based on the student population, however, responses
from parents of EFI students were proportional to the number of students enrolled in the program.
At the secondary level: (i) almost half of parents indicated that their child was in the English program in
grade 8 (in 2006, the English program comprised 61.9% of the grade 8 enrolment); (ii) one-third indicated
that their child had been in an EFI program in grade 8 (in 2006, the EFI program comprised 22.2% of the
grade 8 enrolment); and, (iii) less than 15% reported that their child had been in an MFI or LFI program (in
2006, the MFI and LFI programs comprised 11.4% of the grade 8 enrolment) (OCDSB FSL Survey,
Appendix A, Table A-9).
When parents of children in the English program were asked if their child had previously been enrolled in a
French immersion program, almost one-third of both elementary and secondary parents reported that their
child had previously been enrolled in a French immersion program, the majority having been in EFI (see
Table 2 below). The most frequently cited reasons for withdrawing their child from French immersion
included the difficulty of the program and/or the identification of a learning disability of their child. For
parents of elementary school children, other reasons for withdrawing their child from the program included
their inability to help their child with homework and the amount of homework. For parents of secondary
students, the need for their child to concentrate on the acquisition of English-language skills was a key factor
in their decision to withdraw from French immersion.
Quality Assurance
3
Final Report: Review of FSL Programs, Elementary Phase
Table 2: French immersion program prior to English program
Child was not enrolled in FI
Parents/Guardians of
Elementary Students
(n=164)
112
68.3%
Parents/Guardians of
Secondary Students
(n=187)
134
71.7%
Early French Immersion
32
19.5%
43
23.0%
Middle French Immersion
13
7.9%
5
2.7%
7
4.3%
5
2.7%
Late French Immersion
Special Education/English Language Learning Supports. Approximately 10% of elementary parents,
and 20% of secondary parents, indicated that their child was receiving support for English as a Second
Language, Special Education, or Giftedness. For both groups, giftedness was the most frequently cited
support being received by their child (OCDSB FSL Survey, Appendix A, Table A-7). These figures give
us confidence that the opinions of parents of these students have been provided through the stakeholder
survey, given that: (i) 12.1% of OCDSB elementary students have been formally identified as having
special needs through the Identification Placement Review Committee (IPRC) process; and, (ii) 18.9% of
OCDSB secondary students have been IPRC’d (OCDSB Planning Department, Appendix C).
Language Spoken at Home. The majority of elementary and secondary parents reported speaking only
English at home, with some also reporting that they spoke English and another language. Only 9% of
elementary and 5% of secondary parents reported speaking a language other than English or French at
home. The most common languages reported included Arabic, Chinese and Mandarin (OCDSB FSL
Survey, Appendix A, Tables A-8a and A-8b). These figures are substantially lower than the 22% of
elementary students who have indicated that they do not speak English or French at home (OCDSB
Planning Department, Appendix C).
EFFECTIVE FSL DELIVERY MODELS AND INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES
One of the primary objectives of the FSL review is:
• to improve the effectiveness of delivery and instruction for FSL programs.
This objective speaks to the quality of program as well as to some measures of accountability, including
whether or not:
• provincial guidelines are being followed, including hours of instruction;
• teacher qualifications are clearly defined;
• the entry points into a program are established and consistent throughout the district;
• research into FSL programs is encouraged;
• innovative approaches to programming are encouraged and evaluated for effectiveness;
• there are adequate resources available to support the program;
• student attitudes and motivation are monitored;
• the outcomes/goals for second language (L2) achievement are clearly specified;
• there is special recognition for students enrolled in the program (e.g., bilingual certificate);
• activities in which students use French outside the classroom are encouraged, funded and
publicized; and,
• there is a process for monitoring program operations and success (e.g., student achievement, supply
of teachers, hours of instruction) (adapted from Canadian Parents for French, 2006).
Quality Assurance
4
Final Report: Review of FSL Programs, Elementary Phase
The Ontario Ministry of Education (MOE) acknowledges the importance for students to be able to
communicate in French because: (i) Canada is an officially bilingual country; (ii) learning a second
language may provide a competitive advantage in the workplace; and, (iii) research findings support the
added academic benefits inherent in the language acquisition process. As such, there are a number of
program options available to elementary and secondary students within the publicly funded school system
in Ontario (Ministry of Education, 2001).
Types of Programs
Core French. The purpose of the core French program is to “develop basic communication skills in
French and an understanding of the nature of the language, as well as an appreciation of French culture in
Canada and in other parts of the world.” It is recognized that the core French program offers students a
starting point in terms of French language development which could be further expanded through other
educational experiences within the school context (Ministry of Education, 1998).
Although the MOE does not mandate a core French program until grade 4, a minimum of 600 hours of
French instruction must be accumulated by an individual student by the end of grade 8 (Ministry of
Education, 1998). In the OCDSB, the equivalent of 100 minutes of French instruction per week is
currently offered in junior and senior kindergarten, and 200 minutes per week is offered in grades 1 to 8,
inclusive. A student who enters this program in JK and remains in it until the completion of grade 8
would accumulate 1,164 hours of French instruction.
While immersion and extended French represent the minority of FSL programs in Canada, their
enrolments have been relatively stable over the last decade (CPF, 2006). Research has shown that a
majority of FSL students (i.e., 85%) in Canada enrol in a core French program; however, fewer than 17%
of students who begin this program in elementary school continue to grade 12 (MacFarlane, 2005).
Therefore, it is generally recognized that in order to meet the Federal government’s stated objectives for
bilingualism by 2013 (Government of Canada, 2004), core French programs will need to be examined for
increased effectiveness (MacFarlane, 2005).
OCDSB principals/vice-principals, teachers and parents were asked to indicate the grade level at which
they felt students should enter a core French program. The majority of respondents across all groups
chose JK (ranging from 31% of elementary teachers to 58% of secondary parents) (OCDSB FSL Survey,
Appendix A, Table A-36).
When asked whether they felt students in the core French program should receive more time in French
instruction, the majority of both elementary (41%) and secondary (43%) parents of children in a core
French program felt that they should compared to 34% and 32%, respectively, who did not. Staff was
more likely than parents to say “no” (i.e., 44% of principals/vice-principals and 23% of elementary
teachers); however, these groups also had higher rates of “non-response” (38% and 58%, respectively)
(OCDSB FSL Survey, Appendix A, Table A-37). Similarly, elementary (35%) and secondary (40%)
parents were more in favour of having longer instructional blocks in the core French program as well (i.e.,
compared to 18% of principals/vice-principals, and 15% of teachers) (OCDSB FSL Survey, Appendix A,
Table A-38). Among the suggestions for improving the core French program, many OCDSB teachers and
administrators recommended that the instructional time be adjusted according to the grade level of the
student and based on learner needs (e.g., less French instruction for students in the primary grades). Many
respondents also felt there should be greater implementation of the Accelerated Integrated Method
Quality Assurance
5
Final Report: Review of FSL Programs, Elementary Phase
(AIM)4 program. Others identified the need to better align the primary core French program with the
provincial curriculum and OCDSB balanced literacy initiatives.
Extended French/French Immersion. The Ministry of Education allows school boards to start an
extended French or French immersion program at any grade level provided that all policy and program
requirements are met and that students enrolled in these programs are given the opportunity to achieve all
of the expectations in French as a second language for the relevant program. The primary purpose of these
programs is to:
“…provide students with the skills they need to communicate in a second language, and
thereby to enhance their ability to perform effectively and meet with success in a rapidly
changing global economy. Although the two programs are designed to help students
achieve different levels of proficiency in French through instruction at different levels of
intensity, both aim to develop strong fundamental skills in oral communication (listening
and speaking), reading, and writing. Both aim as well to provide students with an
understanding of the cultures of French-speaking societies by integrating cultural study
into daily language instruction.” (Ministry of Education, 2001)
Both the extended and immersion programs require that students study French as a second language in
addition to studying at least one (extended French) or two (French immersion) of the following subjects
in French: the arts, social studies (grades 1 to 6) or history and geography (grades 7 and 8), mathematics,
science and technology, and health and physical education. In the case of an extended French program,
French must be the language of instruction for a minimum of 25% of the total instructional time at every
grade level of the program, and a minimum of 1,260 hours of instruction in French must be completed by
the end of grade 8. Program guidelines are designed based on a five-year period, starting in grade 4. In
French immersion programs, French must be the language of instruction for a minimum of 50% of the
total instructional time at every grade level of the program, and a minimum of 3,800 hours of instruction
in French must be completed by the end of grade 8 (Ministry of Education, 2001).
In the spring of 2006, information on French immersion programs was obtained for 56 of 65 English
language school districts in Ontario (Appendix B). The following is a summary of the findings:
•
•
•
•
50 school districts offer French immersion, 45 of which have a single entry point and five have
two entry points;
the OCDSB is the only school board in Ontario to offer three different entry points into a French
immersion program – early, middle, and late. In fact, one of the concerns raised by OCDSB
educators was the number of entry points that are currently available in our district;
42 districts offer EFI, 10 offer MFI (grade 4 or 5 entry), and three offer LFI (grade 6, 7 or 8
entry); and,
of the 5 districts that offer more than one entry point, two have EFI and MFI, two have EFI and
LFI, and one has MFI and LFI.
As part of the stakeholder surveys, all respondent groups were asked to rate the French immersion entry
points from “most preferred” to “least preferred” – the majority of respondents in all groups, with the
exception of principals/vice-principals, preferred an EFI entry point; more principals/vice-principals
4
AIM is a method of teaching FSL developed in 2000 by an FSL teacher by the name of Wendy Maxwell. The goal
of AIM is to make learning French more systematic and accelerated to improve linguistic competence of students by
transforming them into independent and confident communicators. To do this, students in the FSL program learn through stories,
drama and music – one of the main features being the use of an invented gestural language that corresponds to the vocabulary
being taught. This technique engages the learner, provides concrete meaning to abastract concepts, and seems to allow for better
retention of new learning. www.aimlanguagelearning.com
Quality Assurance
6
Final Report: Review of FSL Programs, Elementary Phase
preferred the MFI entry point. The LFI entry point was least preferred by a majority of respondents in all
groups (i.e., 40-63% of respondents chose this as their least preferred entry option). When parents were
divided by program, the majority of respondents with children in EFI chose the EFI entry point as most
preferred and those with children in MFI chose the MFI entry point. For parents of children in LFI,
however, more preferred an EFI entry point (OCDSB FSL Survey, Appendix A, Tables A-35a to A-35c).
The primary reason for preferring an earlier entry point was that it is easier for younger children to learn a
new language since they adapt/adjust more easily. Those who preferred a later entry point (i.e. MFI and
LFI) indicated that it provides children with a good foundation in English and allows for the identification
of learning disabilities. Many school administrators who expressed concerns with the existing French
immersion programs felt that an EFI entry point was too early for students with special needs and those
for whom English is not their first language, and that the LFI entry point was too late for acquiring French
language competency.
When asked whether they felt the amount of time their child receives in French instruction is appropriate,
the majority of both elementary (73%) and secondary (65%) parents of children in a French immersion
program felt that it was “just right”. When responses were divided by program, parents/guardians of
students in a French immersion program were generally more satisfied with the amount of time their child
receives in French instruction, compared to parents/guardians of students in the core French program.
(OCDSB FSL Survey, Appendix A, Tables A-13a to A-13b).
Early French Immersion (EFI). Students typically enter this program in senior kindergarten (SK). In both
SK and grade 1, French constitutes 100% of the instructional day. When English is introduced in grade 2,
French instruction is reduced to 80% and gradually diminishes to about 50% in grades 6 to 8.
A major issue that has emerged in the immersion debate is whether or not second language acquisition is
appropriate for children as young as four years of age. In EFI, most of the emphasis is on oral French
communication in the first three years of the program (Dube & MacFarlane, 1991). Walsh and Yeoman
(1999) examined the use of exploratory talk in concept development with primary age children in EFI
programs and found them beneficial for language development. Similarly, Pelletier (1998) supported the
claim that Early French immersion programs are not too stressful for children of kindergarten age.
OCDSB principals/vice-principals, teachers and parents were asked to identify the grade level at which
they felt students should enter an EFI program; most respondents in all groups chose SK (ranging from
32% of principals/vice-principals to 67% of secondary parents). When parent responses were divided by
program, 79-81% of those with children in EFI, 31-39% of those with children in MFI, and 42-45% with
children in LFI chose SK. (OCDSB FSL Survey, Appendix A, Tables A-32a to A-32c).
Middle French Immersion (MFI). This program is intended for those students who have completed the
grade 3 English program and wish to transfer to an immersion program. Currently, all subjects except
English language arts are taught in French in grades 4, 5, and 6, with English accounting for
approximately 60 minutes per day. In grades 7 and 8, the program is 70% French and 30% English, with
French language arts, mathematics, history, geography, health and physical education taught in French.
Again, principals/vice-principals, teachers and parents were asked to identify the grade level at which
they felt students should enter an MFI program. Staff was more likely to choose the current entry point of
grade 4 (67% of principals/vice-principals; 44% of elementary teachers), whereas parent responses were
mixed (i.e., 27-34% of parents selected grade 4, and 37% of parents chose grade 3). When elementary
parent responses were divided by program, parents with children in EFI and LFI were more likely to
choose grade 3 (43% and 39%, respectively), whereas 61% of parents with children in MFI chose the
current entry point of grade 4. Similar trends were observed in the responses from parents of secondary
students. (OCDSB FSL Survey, Appendix A, Tables A-33a to A-33c).
Quality Assurance
7
Final Report: Review of FSL Programs, Elementary Phase
Late French Immersion (LFI). This program currently begins in grade 7 and builds on the skills and
knowledge developed through the core French program from JK to grade 6. French instruction accounts
for between 70 and 75% of the program in grades 7 and 8.
It has been suggested that older students learn French more efficiently because their advanced cognitive
development facilitates some aspects of L2 learning. In other words, older students might be able to learn
languages more quickly and catch up to younger learners (Edwards, 1989; Turnbull et al., 1998, in (ed)
Lapkin 1998; Genesee, 1987 as cited in Wesche et al., 1996). In fact, LFI graduates themselves felt that
an earlier entry point was more preferable than a later entry point (Bonyun 1983; Bonyun 1985;
MacFarlane & Wesche, 1995 as cited in Wesche et al., 1996).
When stakeholders were asked to identify the grade level at which they felt students should enter an LFI
program, staff was more likely to choose the current entry point of grade 7 (33% of principals/viceprincipals; 30% of teachers). Another 21% of principals/vice-principals and 19% of teachers, however,
selected grade 6. Overall, opinions of parents/guardians of elementary students were varied, with a slight
preference for a grade 5 entry point. One third of parents/guardians of secondary students also selected
grade 5 as the best grade to enter LFI. When parent responses were divided by program, more
parents/guardians (both elementary and secondary) of children in EFI and parents of secondary students
who had been in an LFI program chose grade 5; those with children in MFI and parents of elementary
students in LFI were more evenly dispersed across the three grades (i.e., 5, 6 and 7) (OCDSB FSL
Survey, Appendix A, Tables A-34a to A-34c).
Intensive French. The Intensive French (IF) program began in Montreal in1974, but never reached the
popularity of immersion programs as an FSL delivery model in Ontario (Netten & Germain, 2004). In
1998-1999, the Intensive French program was piloted in Newfoundland in an effort to address the high
rates of attrition in core French in that province, and the challenges of effectively teaching communication
skills within a core French program. Since 2003, this program has been implemented across Canada (with
very limited uptake in Ontario) as an alternative delivery model to regular core French programs
(MacFarlane, 2005). While current Ontario Ministry of Education documents do not describe this model
as a means of delivering FSL to students in Ontario, four catholic school boards in Ontario have recently
received funding to pilot intensive core French classes beginning in September 2007 (Canadian
Association of Second Language Teachers (CASLT), 2007). All of these school districts are relatively
small in nature, ranging from 32 to 53 elementary schools.
The IF program involves the delivery of French instruction during a concentrated period of the school
year (usually the beginning), while the remainder of the school year sees the regular curriculum being
delivered in a compact manner (Netten & Germain, 2004). Intensive French programs range between 260
and 420 instructional hours per year and have the following features:
•
increased instructional time for French during the day (i.e., 60-75%);
•
concentrated scheduling of FSL instruction over five months in which the amount of time allotted
to other subject areas is significantly reduced, particularly English language arts;
•
offered in grade 5/6 when students do not rotate classrooms; and,
•
pedagogy is focused on language as the object of learning specifically targeting oral
communication.
Given that instructional activities are dedicated to learning the French language and not to the delivery of
subject-specific content in French, the IF model cannot be considered an immersion program (Netten &
Germain, 2004). Rather, the program was designed with the intent of re-integrating students back into
core French, with a focus on accelerating communication.
Quality Assurance
8
Final Report: Review of FSL Programs, Elementary Phase
Motivating Factors to Enrol in/be Successful in French Immersion Program
As part of the OCDSB stakeholder surveys (Appendix A, Charts A-1 to A-13), respondents were asked to
indicate the factors they believed were most important in terms of making the decision to enroll their
child in their program of choice (parents) or in terms of being successful in a French immersion program
(principals/vice-principals and teachers). In general, all respondents felt that the ability to adjust to
challenging situations (68% to 85%), first language skills other than French (65% to 85%), work habits
(68% to 81%), family support (67% to 88%), emotional development (64% to 81%), an interest in
learning French (61% to 87%), social skills (61% to 77%), and French skills (49% to 64%) were either
“extremely” or “somewhat” important. French being spoken at home, however, was not deemed to be
important (46% to 65%).
Parents also reported that the availability of the program in their local school (73% to 75%) was important
in helping them select their child’s program in elementary school, whereas child care (71% to 73%) was
not. Responses were mixed when asked if transportation was important, with 46-51% of parents reporting
that transportation was not important and 41-48% reporting that it was.
When parent responses were grouped according to the elementary program in which their child was
enrolled (i.e., English, EFI, MFI, or LFI), the following statistically significant differences were observed:
• Parents of children enrolled in the English program were more likely to report that their child’s
first language skills were important in deciding their child’s program compared to parents of
children enrolled in EFI, MFI, or LFI.
• Parents of children enrolled in MFI or LFI were more likely than parents of children in the
English or EFI program to indicate that their child’s interest in learning French was important in
their decision to enrol their son/daughter in their current program.
• Parents of children enrolled in the LFI program were more likely than other parents to indicate
that their child’s French language skills were an important factor in their decision to enrol their
child in the LFI program.
• Parents of children enrolled in LFI were more likely than parents of children in EFI to indicate
that their child’s work habits were important in deciding their child’s program.
• Parents of children in the EFI and LFI programs were more likely than parents of children
enrolled in an English or MFI program to indicate that the availability of the program in the local
school was important to them.
• Parents of children in an MFI program were more likely than parents of children in an English or
EFI program to report that the provision of transportation was important to them.
Teaching Requirements/Qualifications
According to MacFarlane (2005), there are no national benchmarks for what constitutes minimum French
proficiency requirements for a FSL teacher. In Ontario, elementary teachers require at least a French-Partone specialist certificate in order to teach core French. In other provinces, where the supply of fluently
bilingual teachers is minimal (e.g., British Columbia), school districts must often waive language
requirements in order to meet staffing demands (Carr, 1999).
Rehorick (2004) notes that the chronic second language teacher shortage in Canada has reached critical
levels in recent years and is not projected to stabilize soon. Teacher shortages in specialized programs,
such as FSL, are predicted, particularly in Ontario where the academic workforce is aging more rapidly
than any other province (Grimmett & Echols, 2001). Further, Canadian faculties of education do not
create sufficient places in their FSL teacher education programs to meet demand, and oftentimes teacher
candidates switch to the English program because it is perceived as being less challenging (CPF, 2006).
Although FI applicants are more numerous in urban areas, such as Ottawa-Carleton, over half of school
Quality Assurance
9
Final Report: Review of FSL Programs, Elementary Phase
districts in Canada report a shortage of FI teachers (Veilleux & Bournot-Trites, 2005). Indeed, one of the
concerns with the existing French immersion programs as identified by parents of OCDSB students was
the lack of fluently bilingual teachers (including supply teachers) that often results in French not being
taught or spoken consistently in the classroom. Similary, school administrators and teachers noted a need
to improve teacher qualifications for both the core French and immersion programs and to revise the
teaching strategies that are used.
The OCDSB has been actively recruiting FSL teachers since 1998 when the Carleton and Ottawa boards
of education amalgamated. This process includes advertising in English and French newspapers that are
circulated nationally, through the Apply to Teach electronic network, and through job fairs hosted at
various faculties of education throughout the province (OCDSB Human Resources Department, personal
communication).
In February of each year, the Human Resources Department organizes interview teams comprised of
principals, vice-principals and department heads who prescreen candidates who have expressed an
interest in teaching FSL in our district. Each year, upwards of 200 teachers go through this prescreening
process which includes both a written component and a formal interview. The best candidates are
recommended for hire and results are made available to schools for use when hiring commences (OCDSB
Human Resources Department, personal communication).
Over the years, the OCDSB has been able to meet its needs in staffing contract vacancies. There has been
difficulty, however, in staffing extended occasional teaching assignments that result from leaves (e.g.,
pregnancy) that take place over the course of the year. Further, there has been greater difficulty in staffing
FSL assignments in schools in the western-most region of the district, perhaps a result of demographics
within the city. That is, a majority of Francophones live in the east end of the city and may be reluctant to
drive long distances to their work location (OCDSB Human Resources Department, personal
communication).
Due to the lack of qualified FSL staff that possess both French proficiency and pedagogical knowledge,
the Ontario College of Teachers issues more letters of permission to uncertified instructors than any other
teacher-governing council in Canada. This is particularly true at the secondary level where knowledge of
the second language and subject matter expertise are both required CPF (2006). In 2006-2007, the
OCDSB hired 275 teachers (180 elementary, 95 secondary), 112 of whom were FSL teachers (87
elementary, 25 secondary). Almost one-quarter (25 of 112) of these teachers were hired on Temporary
Letters of Approval5, all of whom taught in the elementary panel. During the same time, approximately
142 teachers have been employed in elementary extended occasional assignments and 31 in secondary
assignments. Of those, close to one-third (51) are on a Temporary Letter of Approval (a breakdown by
panel was unavailable). For the 2007-2008 school year, it is anticipated that approximately 70 FSL
teachers will be hired in the elementary panel and 10 in secondary. While it is expected that these
positions can be filled with qualified staff, there continues to be concern with the ability to staff extended
occasional FSL teaching positions (OCDSB Human Resources Department, personal communication).
French Proficiency of the Teacher. When staffing FSL programs, school boards consider it more
important that prospective second language teachers have strong French proficiency skills than to have
content-based knowledge or subject-matter expertise. The latter is considered knowledge that can be
acquired through instructional experience (MacFarlane, 2005). Research has suggested, however, that this
could be dangerous in that once a less-qualified teacher is hired to temporarily fill an immersion position,
5
A Temporary Letter of Approval is issued by the Ontario College of Teachers and is valid for one year. They are typically
given to teachers who are waiting for documentation to come from other jurisdictions or to provide a teacher with the opportunity
to acquire additional qualifications that would allow him/her to teach in a specific subject area (e..g, FSL).
Quality Assurance
10
Final Report: Review of FSL Programs, Elementary Phase
he/she might amass seniority giving them priority over someone who might possess better French
proficiency skills and/or pedagogical knowledge but who was hired at a later date (Veilleux & BournotTrites, 2005; Lapkin, 2004).
Research that has focused on teacher language proficiency has found that:
•
there is no consistency in language measures used by universities and school districts in their
hiring practices. For many of the measures that are used, the lack of validity and reliability can
result in the lowering of teaching language competence in FI programs. At the school board level,
for example, oral and written assessments have typically been administered by designated board
personnel or relied on third party certification (e.g., transcripts, practicum reports). Tests of oral
and written competency whose measures have already been deemed reliable and valid could be
used to ensure that applicants are qualified for specialized positions (Veilleux & Bournot-Trites,
2005).
•
of all the factors related to success on a faculty of education proficiency test (i.e., family
language background, formative educational experience, frequent use of French), interacting in a
French speaking environment was the most influential (Bayliss & Vignola, 2000).
•
a teacher’s lack of language competency (e.g., limited vocabulary, poor oral fluency) and/or lack
of knowledge of FSL specific classroom methodologies may result in: (i) limited ability to plan
and implement language programs and teach curriculum in specific content areas; (ii) poor
language models for students; and, (iii) limited ability to provide corrective feedback on
grammatical errors (Veilleux & Bournot-Trites, 2005; Carr, 1999; Lapkin, 2004; MacFarlane,
2005).
•
proficiency in the target language is critical for program success (Evaluation Plus in report for
Edmonton Public School Board, 2002); and,
•
school boards need FSL teachers that graduate from faculties of education with a high level of
French proficiency, thereby providing them with flexibility to teach in any French context,
whether that be core French or FI (Bayliss & Vignola, 2000).
Based on this evidence, therefore, it can be concluded that both pedagogical knowledge and language
proficiency are vital for delivering a quality FSL program.
Professional Development Opportunities. Generalist teachers teaching core French frequently cited the
following challenges in their role: lack of specialized training; implementing multiple cross-curricular
changes; the need to accommodate ESL and/or special needs students; and, balancing classroom practice
with advances in theories of language acquisition (Carr, 1999). Although lack of professional
development opportunities is frequently cited by many teachers as being a barrier to providing quality
programs, Bayliss and Vignola (2000) found that the issue of teacher proficiency was more a matter of
low-ability applicants (i.e., teacher candidates tend to be a homogeneous group in terms of their
background when applying for an FSL teaching program) than a lack of district-level PD opportunities.
A national teacher survey conducted by Lapkin et al. (2006) with over 1,300 FSL teachers found that the
majority of respondents had participated in at least one PD opportunity (i.e., workshop, reading
professional literature or collaboration with colleagues) each year. Nevertheless, according to MacFarlane
(2005), more work is required at the district level to enhance teachers’ knowledge of effective secondlanguage teaching methodologies, including: (i) experientially-based teaching approaches; (ii) designing
more interactive classroom activities with a focus on communication; (iii) providing students with more
opportunities for contact with francophone speakers/culture; (iv) integrating grammar instruction with
content; and, (v) focusing more on student-centred learning.
Quality Assurance
11
Final Report: Review of FSL Programs, Elementary Phase
Within the OCDSB, professional development opportunities designed specifically for FSL teachers are
provided centrally through the Curriculum Services Department6. Over the past two years, the majority of
these workshops have been geared towards those in the French immersion program stream. In 2005-2006,
the majority of FI teacher-participants were from the primary and junior levels, whereas in 2006-2007
there has been increased participation from intermediate FI teachers. In 2006-2007, there were also more
opportunities for cross-panel collaboration (i.e., 6 of 17 workshops) compared to the previous year (i.e., 2
of 17 workshops). The following table provides an overview of the in-service opportunities offered to
FSL teachers during 2005-2006 and 2006-2007.
Table 3: OCDSB Central Professional Development Opportunities Specific to FSL Teachers
School Year
2005-2006
2006-2007
Program
Division
Number of
Workshops
4
1
Number of
Participants
129
35
Core
Primary, Junior, Intermediate
Intermediate
Immersion
Primary
Junior
Primary, Junior
Primary, Junior, Intermediate
Primary, Junior, Intermediate
9
6
1
1
2
472
361
26
13
118
Primary
Junior
Intermediate
Primary, Junior
Junior, Intermediate
Intermediate, Secondary
4
1
6
1
4
1
354
55
219
68
145
8
Core
Immersion
Despite these offerings, however, OCDSB teachers and administrators are still asking for more
professional development opportunities – particularly for those who are responsible for delivering the
core French program and French immersion teachers who have students with special needs in their
classrooms.
In sum, many researchers have examined the issue of linguistic standards required for FSL teachers,
arguing that national benchmarks for language competence of FI teachers are needed in order to
effectively address labour shortages of FSL teachers. In addition, stringent selection criteria or clearly
defined competency criterion linked with specific FSL teaching positions are required for district hiring
processes. School districts must ensure that FSL teachers receive adequate resources and professional
development in order to effectively deliver FSL programming.
Learning Environment
Knaus and Nadasdi (2001) analyzed the attitudes of immersion students toward French culture and found
some differences favoring EFI over MFI students; however these differences disappeared by grade 8. The
authors argued that early entry immersion programs have several socio-cultural advantages including: (i)
facilitating spontaneous contact with Francophones; (ii) reducing social distance; and, (iii) developing
positive attitudes toward culture and people.
6
FSL teachers may also access PD through other in-service sessions offered centrally, by an outside organization, or through
their school.
Quality Assurance
12
Final Report: Review of FSL Programs, Elementary Phase
Pedagogical Considerations. An important issue in the research literature regarding FSL programs is
related to the different teaching strategies used in EFI and LFI programs (Edwards, 1989; Ewart & Straw,
2001). Specifically, Dicks (1994) argued that debate over the appropriate entry point for immersion
ignores a larger question regarding teaching styles in immersion classrooms. That is, a more
communicative approach is used in EFI, whereas a more formative approach is used in LFI (Dicks, 1994,
as cited in Wesche et al., 1996). Further, instructional methods used in LFI programs (and to a lesser
degree MFI) tend to be more experiential and formal, which may explain why students in these two
programs can perform relatively well on analytical tasks such as writing (Dicks, 1992, as cited in Wesche
et al., 1996). Despite the functional communicative proficiency demonstrated by early immersion
students, they continue to have poor grammatical skills. Results from a study using a more formal
approach (experiential) to second-language teaching in the early immersion classroom, however, have
shown positive effects on French language proficiency in analytical tasks (Day & Shapson, 1990).
Another important factor in the literature is sociolinguistic competence. Landry and Allard (1993) argued
that the effects of bilingual education cannot be understood without taking into account the strong
influences of the students' sociolinguistic environment. In a study of student-teacher classroom
interactions, Mondada and Pekarek Doehler (2004) found that second language proficiency is influenced
by interactional, institutional, and sociocultural factors that took place through classroom talk. Nadasdi et
al. (2005) discovered that immersion students sometimes mistakenly tend not to use vernacular forms of
French in their speech patterns and, conversely, over-use more hyper-formal forms of communication. A
more intensive use of instructional strategies that employ sociolingual variants of formal French could be
a possible solution to support students in a French immersion program.
Interested in more than the oral communication element of FSL programs, Vignola (1995) examined the
writing process of 17 first-year anglophone EFI graduates at the University of Ottawa. Participants were
divided into different groups based on their level of writing proficiency (weak and strong) in their first
language (L1) and on their level of writing proficiency (high and low) in their second language (L2).
Think-aloud protocols and interviews were used for data collection which yielded information that could
not normally be obtained by examining written compositions. A major finding of the study was that
second-language written performance and L2 proficiency are distinct from one another. As a result, it was
suggested that teachers should not use written texts as the sole basis for placement and that the following
strategies could be used to help improve less proficient students’ French writing skills: (i) use critical selfassessment during the revision process; (ii) use resources, such as dictionaries more effectively; and, (iii)
encourage students to be aware of the ‘multi-faceted’ nature of the writing act.
In many immersion programs, language models are limited to teachers, their anglophone peers and the
school context. Research has shown that this environment often resulted in semantic confusion and
comprehension difficulties as a by-product of numerous grammatical errors (e.g., gender, verb forms,
pronouns) being made (Lyster, 1987, as cited in Edwards, 1989). Therefore, it is important for FSL
teachers to be aware of the relative importance of communication error types so they can be corrected
(Edwards, 1989). Cyclical curricular modifications to immersion programs could be implemented to
avoid the features of the board’s FI programs which yield these errors (e.g., teaching strategies,
curriculum). OCDSB parents also offered opinions regarding the current French immersion programs
being offered, and expressed particular concern with the lack of emphasis on the teaching and practice of
oral French skills. Suggestions for improvement included:
• integrate French into non-classroom activities (e.g., sports);
• provide more interactive exercises;
• offer language exchanges to Quebec;
• offer French courses in writing, grammar, etc. on weekends or during the summer; and,
• provide access to French movies, plays, and French culture.
Quality Assurance
13
Final Report: Review of FSL Programs, Elementary Phase
Interaction with Francophones. Rehorick (2004) noted that anglophones have a limited number of native
or native-like French speakers as role models, particularly in their own age bracket and in elementary
schools. As a result, the level of French competency obtained in an immersion program may be sufficient
for communicating with peers and teachers, but it does not transfer to other contexts. As such, the author
recommended that: (i) school-based and outreach programs be developed which use more sustained
interaction among students of both the anglophone and francophone communities; and, (ii) schools should
use the linguistic resources which exist in their community. In fact, MacFarlane (2005) reported that, as a
result of the acute teacher shortage, francophone community members may work in collaboration with the
classroom teacher in some Canadian provinces to deliver the FSL program in school. Frequent
interactions with francophones have also been reported to lead to a better understanding of non-standard
variants of formal French (e.g., the use of “ne”) (Rehner & Mougeon, 1999), and French native speaking
teachers could provide students with: (i) an environment that is less prone to communication errors; and,
(ii) a wider range of options in French conversation as a result of their authentic real-life experiences
(MacFarlane, 2005; Edwards, 1989). Comments provided by some OCDSB principals and teachers
supported the idea of increasing students’ French exposure beyond the school and/or home.
Language of Instruction. While it has generally been thought that subjects such as history or geography
should be taught in French (because they better lend themselves to oral communication than math or
science), Dube and MacFarlane (1991) and Swain (2001) discovered that the effectiveness of a subject
being taught in French is influenced more by the pedagogical approach of the teacher. When practices in
other districts of similar size to the OCDSB or those in close proximity to us were reviewed, many did
subjects, such as arts, history, geography, physical education, and social science in French (Appendix B).
As part of the OCDSB surveys, stakeholders were asked to offer their opinions as to the “best” language
of instruction for various subjects and divisions. Table 4, below, summarizes the feedback received
(OCDSB FSL Survey, Appendix A, Charts A-14 to A-43). Perhaps not surprising, arts, physical
education and social science were selected most often as being best taught in French across all three
French immersion entry points and divisions, whereas most respondents felt that mathematics should be
taught in English. Opinions regarding the best language of instruction for Science and Technology were
more varied, with a slightly greater percentage of respondents selecting French for the EFI and MFI entry
points across all divisions; for LFI, the “best” language of instruction was less clear. All OCDSB
stakeholder groups – parents, teachers, and administrators – indicated that they were concerned with the
lack of consistency across the school district with respect to the subjects that are being taught in French.
Possible solutions that were offered by parents to this issue included: (i) teaching “core” subjects in
English; or, (ii) teaching all subjects, with the exception of English and Math, in French until grade 7
(unless they are continued in high school).
Table 4: Opinions Regarding Best Language of Instruction by Subject, Entry Point and Division
Entry Point
EFI
Arts
MFI
LFI
EFI
Mathematics
MFI
LFI
Quality Assurance
Language
French
English
French
English
French
English
French
English
French
English
French
English
Primary
56-75%
8-13%
Junior
52-70%
5-10%
54-70%
5-9%
37-41%
27-45%
25-37%
28-52%
26-34%
33-49%
Intermediate
47-62%
9-14%
47-58%
6-11%
54-66%
6-11%
17-28%
30-58%
18-26%
32-53%
20-30%
36-58%
14
Final Report: Review of FSL Programs, Elementary Phase
Table 4 (continued): Opinions Regarding Best Language of Instruction by Subject, Entry Point and
Division
Entry Point
EFI
Physical and
Health Education
MFI
LFI
EFI
Science and
Technology
MFI
LFI
EFI
Social
Science
MFI
LFI
Language
French
English
French
English
French
English
French
English
French
English
French
English
French
English
French
English
French
English
Primary
39-70%
10-42%
Junior
25-65%
8-52%
50-70%
4-12%
45-52%
19-36%
42-47%
17-29%
31-48%
21-39%
51-69%
12-29%
51-69%
6-10%
49-66%
7-12%
Intermediate
17-61%
10-58%
43-58%
6-12%
50-65%
8-14%
32-38%
21-38%
29-37%
20-35%
29-39%
24-42%
47-64%
6-11%
44-57%
2-9%
50-72%
5-10%
Further, Turnbull (2000) investigated the issue of teacher language use in core French classrooms, exploring
the notion that teachers may use either English or French depending on the context. Results revealed that
although teachers had been provided with identical thematic instructional materials, the use of language
differed by teacher and by type of discourse (i.e., classroom management, academic discussions and social
communication). The author concluded that there is a need to explore the factors that influence language use
in core French classrooms.
Vandergrift (2003) used a case study approach to examine think-aloud protocols used by secondary
school students from different course levels. The study examined the strategies and cognitive processes,
such as prior knowledge, used by L2 learners to improve listening comprehension. Results showed that
L2 beginners relied too heavily on prior knowledge to interpret unfamiliar language, and suggested that
prolonged exposure to a second language could improve successful listening skills insofar as it requires
listeners to overcome such cognitive constraints as an over-load on short-term memory. Advanced L2
listeners tend to use “extralinguistic contextual clues” and other meta-cognitive strategies to decode
meaning and improve comprehension (i.e., prediction, inferences, and selective attention), allowing them
to process language more effectively.
Resource Allocations/Supports. In general, FSL teachers in Canada have expressed concern about the
amount and availability of French resource materials (Lapkin et al., 2006). This sentiment is more
pronounced with FI teachers than with core French teachers. Further, core French teachers believe that
core French is regarded as an under funded, peripheral activity in which they feel unsupported and
generally under-valued (MacFarlane, 2005).
Lapkin et al. (2006) found that: (i) both core French and immersion teachers are generally dissatisfied
with the availability and quality of resources to deliver FSL programs; (ii) FSL teachers require more
support in terms of dedicated FSL classroom space, access to consultants for special needs students,
funding for activities, and a greater supply of French-speaking occasional teachers; and, (iii) core French
teachers reported less support from parents and students, and all teachers reported less support from the
Quality Assurance
15
Final Report: Review of FSL Programs, Elementary Phase
community than from administration. Through the OCDSB stakeholder surveys, many teachers and
principals echoed these findings, specifically with respect to the need to have dedicated classroom space
and resource materials for delivering the core French program and providing special education supports to
students in the FI program. Principals also identified the need to improve both the quantity and quality of
French resources that are available in the schools.
In addition to material resources, there is also a need for: (i) French speaking teachers who have specialist
qualifications in special education; and, (ii) the staffing allocation for special needs resource teachers to
be the equivalent to the allocation for the regular program (Edwards, 1989).
In an effort to identify the availability of certain resources in OCDSB schools to support students in both
the core French and French immersion programs, principal/vice-principals and elementary teachers were
asked to identify whether or not the following supports were available at their school site: parent/
volunteer, peer mentoring, Special Education Learning Centre (SELC) teacher, Learning Support Teacher
(LST), Educational Assistant (EA). Responses from the survey showed that parent/volunteer and peer
mentoring support were more readily available, whereas SELCs, LSTs, and EAs were not (OCDSB FSL
Survey, Appendix A, Charts A-44a to A-44e). Indeed, the 2007-2008 LST allocations for OCDSB
elementary schools show that schools that offer both English and French immersion programs have a
proportionate number of LSTs to students enrolled, whereas schools that only offer French immersion
receive a smaller allocation compared to schools that offer the English program. That is, although 15% of
elementary students attend an OCDSB school that only offers a French immersion program, the total LST
allocation for these immersion centres is only 11%. Additional comments provided by principals/viceprinicpals and teachers suggested that supports that are typically available to students during the regular
English program should also be available during core French time, as this is not always the case.
Table 5: 2007-2008 LST Allocation to Elementary Schools
School Type
English
French Immersion
(with the exception of
JK)
English & French
Immersion
Enrolment
Number of
LST
Positions
46
14
Number of
FTE
LST Positions
34.5
11.75
Percentage of
LST Allocation
12,476
7,051
% of
Elementary
Enrolment
26.6%
15.0%
27,452
58.4%
56
61.75
57.2%
31.9%
10.9%
Parents also reported that there was insufficient support for struggling students, particularly for those with
special needs, and that children who experience difficulties were not being detected early enough. It was
suggested that having better screening processes for early identification of struggling students and
providing tutors for students who need/want to have the additional support could be ways of addressing
these concerns.
School Organization. As part of the OCDSB stakeholder surveys, respondents were asked to indicate
which type of school organization (i.e., single track – English or French immersion vs. dual track –
English and French immersion) they thought was best for student learning. Across all four stakeholder
groups – principals/vice-principals, teachers, and both elementary and secondary parents – the “dual
track” model was selected most often for the following reasons (OCDSB FSL Survey, Appendix A, Table
A-17a):
• it provides a more balanced learning environment (e.g., students would have exposure to both
languages/cultures);
Quality Assurance
16
Final Report: Review of FSL Programs, Elementary Phase
• less disruption to students should they experience difficulty (i.e., child could change programs
without having to change schools);
• it provides parents/children with more program options from which to choose in order to best
address their needs; and,
• greater access to learning support services for students with special needs and greater opportunities
for staff collaboration (principals only).
School administrators also provided the following insights into the staffing challenges that are faced in
dual track centres when there is insufficient enrolment:
• school organization/classroom assignments (e.g., fewer teachers to teach different subjects,
allocation of teaching staff to the various program options such as EFI and LFI); and,
• limited opportunities for teachers to interact, collaborate, and team teach.
Respondents who felt that the single-track model was best for student learning were most likely to
indicate that the fully-immersed learning environment provides students with the greatest opportunity to
develop their language skills in French. A high proportion of school administrators and teachers who
provided a rationale for their choice felt that not only is a single stream school better for staffing and
administration purposes, but that it offers a better quality of education because it focuses on either English
or French.
Student Outcomes
Student outcomes can be either positive or negative, and typically include such things as language
proficiency, achievement, and employment status/opportunities. The following summarizes key findings
from each of these areas.
Language Proficiency. One of the most talked about outcomes of an FSL program relates to French
language proficiency, and while the Federal Government’s action plan has a goal of doubling the
proportion of secondary school graduates with ‘functional knowledge of their second official language’
(Government of Canada, 2004), there is no national consensus for language proficiency benchmarks or
assessment measures for high school graduates’ French skills (MacFarlane, 2005). In Ontario, general
outcomes for second language proficiency have been identified, but again, a standardized test to measure
the French skills of secondary students after they graduate has not yet been developed (Lapkin, 2004).
The Canadian Association of Second Language Teachers, however, is currently investigating the
necessary steps to make the development of a proficiency test possible (MacFarlane, 2003).
When OCDSB parents were asked about their expectations regarding French language proficiency,
parents of elementary students had greater expectations compared to parents of secondary students. That
is, parents of elementary students were more likely to expect their child to: (i) understand complex details
and fine points of meaning in unfamiliar materials (reading); (ii) write where ideas are developed and
presented in a coherent manner (writing); and (iii) converse in French with a francophone (oral). Parents
of secondary school students, however, were more likely to expect their child to be able to: (i) understand
simple texts and grasp the main ideas on a familiar topic (reading); (ii) write words, phrases and simple
statements or questions on very familiar topics (writing); and, (iii) participate in a short conversation in
French on a familiar topic (oral). It is important to note, however, that 83% of elementary parents
responding to the survey had children in a French immersion program, compared to 48% of secondary
parents. When parent responses were divided by program, expectations regarding French proficiency
levels were highest among parents of children in the EFI and MFI programs compared to those of
children in LFI. This was true both of elementary and secondary parents (OCDSB FSL Survey, Appendix
A, Tables A-14a to A-16b).
Quality Assurance
17
Final Report: Review of FSL Programs, Elementary Phase
MacFarlane (2005) claimed that all FI programs lead to a high level of French proficiency at the end of
secondary school. Nevertheless, despite the difficulty in defining and measuring French proficiency, only
24% of Canadian secondary school graduates are considered to be bilingual (Government of Canada,
2003).
Oral Language Skills. Research, tends to support the following conclusions with respect to oral language
skills of students enrolled in FSL programs:
• Immersion programs expose students to more authentic use of language which results in higher
levels of communicative competence than that achieved by their peers who receive French as the
object of study (Swain, 1981; Stern, 1976, as cited in MacFarlane, 2005).
• French proficiency is closely related to the amount of time spent learning the language (Swain,
1981; Carroll, 1975, as cited in MacFarlane, 2005; Turnbull, Lapkin, Hart & Swain, 1998), and
intense periods of French instruction lead to better FSL outcomes when compared to the same
amount of instructional time spread over a longer period (Lightbown and Spada, 1993; Wesche et
al., 1994; Lapkin, Harley & Hart, 1995, as cited in Wesche et al., 1996). In fact, speaking and
writing results show that after following an intensive French program at grade 5 or 6, students
approach the performance of younger francophone peers are able to communicate better than
regular core French students in grades 9 or 10 (MacFarlane, 2005). A major question is whether
these students can maintain these gains once they re-enter a “traditional” core French program for
the rest of their formal schooling (Lapkin, 2004).
• Several studies show that EFI does not produce native-like speakers, and their speaking and
writing skills are typically below those of francophone students by grade 8 (Genesee, 1978;
Swain & Lapkin, 1981; Crawford, 1984; Lapkin & Swain, 1985; Holobow et al., 1987, as cited in
Edwards, 1989). Nevertheless, at the end of grade 8, students in EFI do tend to be stronger than
students from the two other entry points in speaking ability and listening, and perform at least
equally well in reading (Parkin et al., 1987; Genesee, 1987; as cited in Edwards 1989; Lapkin et
al., 1991; Day & Shapson, 1989; Harley, 1987; Hart & Lapkin, 1989; Swain & Lapkin, 1986, as
cited in Wesche et. al, 1996).
• One of the major concerns regarding EFI is that common errors in classroom discourse may
become ‘fossilized’ by students as they progress through the immersion program (Adiv, 1980;
Lyster, 1987, as cited in Edwards, 1989). Typical errors made by EFI students in their
communications include: (i) limited use of verb forms (i.e., plurals and tenses); (ii) improper
gender and pronoun distinctions; (iii) and incorrect word order within sentences (Harley &
Swain, 1977; Harley 1984, as cited in Edwards, 1989). Nevertheless, it is generally accepted that
the French skills acquired from an EFI program ought to be viewed as a functional basis to be
expanded upon and further developed in a secondary school immersion program.
• Some researchers have found that MFI students scored lower on measures of reading
comprehension when compared to EFI, particularly when the tests were conducted at the end of
grade 4 (Cziko, 1976; Parkin et al., 1986, as cited in Edwards, 1989). However, by the end of
grade 6, Lapkin & Swain, (1984) showed that there were no differences between EFI and MFI
students (as cited in Edwards, 1989).
• A major finding by Dicks (1994) was the advantage for EFI students (and the grade 4 entry point
for MFI students) over LFI in terms of overall French skills (as cited in Wesche et al., 1996).
• Other researchers (Holobow et al., 1987; Parkin et al., 1988 as cited in Edwards, 1989)
demonstrated that, compared to EFI students, those in MFI scored lower on several measures of
pronunciation, listening comprehension, and use of verb tense. These results were consistent
across time (i.e, at the end of grade 4 and grade 6).
• At the end of grade 8, substantial differences were found in all four skill areas (i.e., speaking,
reading, listening and writing) favoring EFI over MFI, particularly in grammar and syntax (Hart
et al., 1988, as cited in Edwards, 1989); however, reading comprehension skills developed
quickly in MFI. It was suggested that this result may be attributable to the transfer of first
Quality Assurance
18
Final Report: Review of FSL Programs, Elementary Phase
•
•
•
•
language (L1) reading skills into second language (L2) acquisition. It was also suggested that
MFI learning outcomes could approximate those of the EFI programs if a sufficient amount of
French instructional hours were delivered (Edwards, 1989). Finally, Wesche et al., (1996) warned
that any comparisons of EFI vs. MFI programs must take into account the total number of
accumulated hours of instruction, and the intensity with which they are delivered.
Studies which have shown no significant differences between students in EFI and LFI in terms of
proficiency at the end of grade 12 may be related more to the blending of the two student
populations in high school (Morrison & Pawley, 1986, as cited in Edwards, 1989; Hart, Lapkin &
Swain, 1989, as cited in Wesche, et al., 1996). That is, it may be that only a small subgroup of
these two populations pursues secondary immersion programs; therefore, slower overall progress
is achieved due to the blending of two populations than if they remained separate throughout the
secondary school immersion program (Edwards, 1989).
Other factors, such as student motivation, behavioural problems and poor attitudes also
contribute to success in language acquisition (Edwards, 1989).
When principals/vice-principals and teachers in the OCDSB were asked to provide their opinion
as to which FI entry point provided students with the best opportunity to develop their language
skills in French by the end of grade 8, approximately half of the principals/vice-principals chose
EFI and MFI, whereas elementary teachers were more likely to choose EFI (48%) than MFI
(34%). Less than 10% of respondents in both groups chose LFI (OCDSB FSL Survey, Appendix
A, Table A-30).
When asked to provide their opinion as to which FI entry point provided students with the best
opportunity to develop their language skills in English by the end of grade 8, the majority of
principals/vice-principals (56%) and elementary teachers (34%) chose MFI. Less than 25% of
respondents chose EFI, and 38% of administrators and 27% of teachers chose LFI (OCDSB FSL
Survey, Appendix A, Table A-31).
Writing Skills. Research findings have been less consistent in the area of writing. For example,
• some studies have found that students in a later French immersion entry point tend to perform at
least as well as EFI students on some writing tasks (e.g., Hart, Lapkin, & Swain, 1992, as cited in
Wesche, et al., 1996). A subsequent study (Lapkin, 1998) found no statistical differences
between writing skills of EFI, MFI and LFI students, as measured by an open-ended written
opinion task. Still other reports show that EFI students perform better, particularly when a more
holistic writing rubric is used to measure outcomes (OCDSB, 2002).
• after following an intensified French program in elementary EFI, students demonstrated stronger
descriptive writing, but with risks to English reading comprehension (Reeder et al., 1999).
• students with strong L1 writing expertise and a high level of L2 proficiency (as measured by tests
of listening and written comprehension) achieved the best scores in L2 written compositions.
Nevertheless, decisions made by students in L2 writing were influenced more by their L1 writing
expertise than by their L2 proficiency (Vignola, 1995).
Academic Achievement. Research has shown repeatedly that early French immersion students do not lose
any ground in their other academic subjects, and that an immersion environment does not adversely affect
academic achievement (Parkin et al., 1987, as cited in Edwards 1989; Lapkin, Swain & Shapson, 1990, as
cited in Wesche, et. al, 1996; Bournot-Trites & Tellowitz, 2002). Methodological issues aside (e.g.,
attrition from groups, small sample sizes, mobility, instruments used to group students), several studies
have demonstrated a high correlation between predictors of success at the outset of FI programs (i.e.,
reading readiness in SK; scholastic aptitudes; and teacher perceptions of performance) and French
proficiency in an FI program (Wightman et al., 1977; Morrison & Pawley, 1986, as cited in Edwards,
1989).
Quality Assurance
19
Final Report: Review of FSL Programs, Elementary Phase
More recently, MacCoubrey (2004) was able to identify French immersion students at risk of future
reading difficulties in French and English using reading scores at the primary level. In addition, numerous
studies have been cited in comprehensive reviews which compared the academic performance of
immersion students with non-immersion students (Edwards, 1989; Wesche, et. al, 1996; Lapkin, 1998).
Most, if not all of these studies, found no significant differences in either English language or math skills
as determined by results on standardized assessments (e.g., EQAO, Canadian Test of Basic Skills CTBS).
English. According to Statistics Canada (2004), English language development of students in French
immersion is often superior to that of non-immersion children, as evidenced in the following:
• The introduction of an FSL program will initially result in deficits in subject-matter learning and a
temporary lag in English development (i.e., reading, word knowledge, and spelling). The extent of
the delay, although temporary, will depend on: (i) the amount of prior learning in a core French
program; and (ii) the intensity of the immersion program in the first two years. Once certain basic
skills are established, however, these students will perform as well or better than students in the
regular program (Dube & MacFarlane, 1991; Harley, Hart & Lapkin, 1986, as cited in Wesche,
1996; Hart, Lapkin & Swain, 1988, as cited in Edwards, 1989).
• Grade 3 EQAO scores of students enrolled in FI programs with varying amounts of L2 instructional
time showed that students in school districts with the most intensive early French immersion
programs demonstrated weaker English language literacy skills compared to those with less
intensive programs (Turnbull et al., 2001). However, in a subsequent study Turnbull et al., (2003)
conducted an analysis of grade 6 immersion students’ EQAO scores and revealed that the
differences in achievement in reading, writing, and mathematics that existed in grade 3 disappeared
by grade 6. The authors offered two possible explanations for these results: (i) selective attrition of
weaker students from immersion programs; and (ii) an extended lag in development of bilingual
abilities.
• A review of the EQAO results for grade 3 students in the OCDSB, aggregated over a three-year
period and as presented in the graphs below, yielded the following observations: (i) a higher
proportion of students in the French immersion program achieved at or above the provincial
standard in reading and writing; (ii) within each program (i.e., French immersion and English) a
higher proportion of girls than boys achieved at levels 3 and 4 in reading and writing.
EQAO Grade 3 Reading by Gender and Program 2004-2006
Percentage of Students
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Quality Assurance
Le ve l 2
Le ve l 3/4 P ro vinc ia l
S ta nda rd
11%
33%
52%
4%
24%
71%
2%
9%
31%
58%
1%
3%
20%
77%
NE 1
Le ve l 1
B o y N o n-F I
4%
Bo y FI
1%
G irl N o n-F I
G irl F I
20
Final Report: Review of FSL Programs, Elementary Phase
EQAO Grade 3 Writing by Gender and Program 2004-2006
Percentage of Students
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Le ve l 3/4 P ro vinc ia l
S ta nda rd
NE 1
Le ve l 1
Le ve l 2
B o y No n-F I
2%
1%
45%
52%
Bo y FI
0%
1%
31%
68%
G irl N o n-F I
1%
1%
35%
63%
G irl F I
0%
0%
20%
79%
• Similar trends were observed in the grade 6 OCDSB EQAO results, as shown in the graphs below.
That is, girls outperformed boys in both programs, and students in a French immersion program
outperforming students in the English program.
EQAO Grade 6 Reading by Gender and Program 2004-2006
Percentage of Students
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Quality Assurance
NE 1
Le ve l 1
Le ve l 2
Le ve l 3/4 P ro vinc ia l
S ta nda rd
B o y No n-F I
2%
10%
32%
55%
Bo y FI
0%
2%
17%
81%
G irl N o n-F I
1%
7%
26%
67%
G irl F I
0%
1%
13%
86%
21
Final Report: Review of FSL Programs, Elementary Phase
EQAO Grade 6 Writing by Gender and Program 2004-2006
Percentage of Students
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
NE 1
Le ve l 1
Le ve l 2
Le ve l 3/4 P ro vinc ia l
S ta nda rd
B o y No n-F I
1%
5%
45%
49%
Bo y FI
0%
1%
25%
74%
Girl No n-F I
1%
2%
30%
67%
Girl F I
0%
0%
12%
87%
• Additional analysis of the 2005-2006 EQAO assessment data in reading for the OCDSB cohort of
grade 6 students, indicated that 92% of students in the MFI program achieved at or above the
provincial standard, compared to 86% in EFI and 63% in the English program. In writing, a similar
trend was observed with 84% of MFI, 82% of EFI, and 59% of English program students meeting
or exceeding level 3.
• Several researchers argue that French immersion has no detrimental effect on English literacy
skills. In fact, these researchers report that immersion children caught up to, and often surpassed
students in the regular English program (Edwards, 1989; Wesche, et. al, 1996; Bournot-Trites,
2002; Dicks & Rehorick, 2003).
• The lag in certain aspects of English language proficiency (i.e., grammar) of primary FI students
disappeared after the introduction of studies in English language arts (Edwards, 1989; Lapkin,
1998; Bournot-Trites, 2002; Canadian Parents for French, 2006).
Math. Bilingualism is seen to have a positive effect on a child's overall development. Studying a second
language facilitates the development of cognitive flexibility, creativity, and meta-linguistic awareness.
These views are consistent with major theories of cognitive development (i.e., Vygotsky, 1962, as cited in
Edwards, 1989) which supports the notion that there are many cognitive processes that are common to
both language acquisition and learning in other subject areas (i.e., the ability to summarize, generalize,
and solve problems). The following research provides further evidence in support of these arguments:
• Math scores of children in early French immersion surpassed those of the regular English students,
suggesting that bilingual programs increased intellectual potential (Parkin et al., as cited in Wesche,
et al., 1996; Turnbull et al, 2001; Dicks & Rehorick, 2003).
• Math performance, as assessed by an English math assessment, differed between two groups of
grade 6 immersion students (i.e., French instruction time was either 50% or 80%; the “80% group”
received Math instruction in French), with the group receiving Math instruction in French scoring
higher (Bournot-Trites & Reeder, 2001).
• A review of the EQAO results for grade 3 and 6 students in the OCDSB, aggregated over a threeyear period and as presented in the graphs below, yielded the following observations: (i) a higher
proportion of students in the French immersion program achieved at or above the provincial
standard in mathematics; (ii) within each program (i.e., French immersion and English) a higher
proportion of boys than girls achieved at levels 3 and 4 in mathematics.
Quality Assurance
22
Final Report: Review of FSL Programs, Elementary Phase
EQAO Grade 3 Math by Gender and Program 2004-2006
Percentage of Students
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
NE 1
Le ve l 1
Le ve l 2
Le ve l 3/4 P ro vinc ia l
S ta nda rd
B o y No n-F I
1%
4%
32%
62%
Bo y FI
0%
2%
20%
78%
G irl No n-F I
1%
5%
35%
58%
G irl F I
0%
2%
23%
74%
EQAO Grade 6 Math by Gender and Program 2004-2006
Percentage of Students
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
NE 1
Le ve l 1
Le ve l 2
Le ve l 3/4 P ro vinc ia l
S ta nda rd
B o y N o n-F I
0%
11%
33%
57%
Bo yFI
0%
2%
17%
81%
G irl N o n-F I
0%
10%
34%
56%
G irl F I
0%
1%
20%
79%
• Additional analysis of the 2005-2006 EQAO assessment data in mathematics for the OCDSB
cohort of grade 6 students, indicated that 81% of students in the EFI program achieved at or above
the provincial standard, compared to 79% in MFI and 58% in the English program.
• Results from a longitudinal study conducted in Australia compared grade 5 FI students’
performance on a French translation of a standardized math assessment to those of their English
counterparts and found no differences (de Courcy & Burston, 2000). These researchers claimed that
their results may shed some light on children’s reading processes in their second language.
• Even when controlling for cognitive ability (i.e., matching students on intelligence), and using tests
which are sensitive to all aspects of the Math curriculum, no negative impact on math scores were
found between immersion students and students in the regular program (Edwards, 1989; Harley,
Hart & Lapkin, 1986, as cited in Wesche, et al., 1996; Bournot-Trites, 2002).
Students with Special Needs and English Language Learners. There is evidence that: (i) below-average
students in FI programs do no worse academically than low achievement students in the regular program
on standardized assessments; and (ii) students with less than average cognitive ability can acquire
interpersonal communicative skills (i.e., listening and speaking comprehension) in the second language at
the same rate as their peers (Genesee, 1976; Halpern 1982, as cited in Edwards, 1989).
Quality Assurance
23
Final Report: Review of FSL Programs, Elementary Phase
Research has also found that immersion students tend to be of higher academic ability compared to their
non-immersion peers (Dingle Drover, 1988, as cited in Weshce, et al., 1996). Thus, FI programs may
provide a peer-group environment where gifted students could thrive socially and academically. Exposure
to a second language may also enhance certain higher brain functions such as creativity and cognitive
functioning. However, a bilingual environment should not be considered sufficient for this purpose; gifted
students would still benefit from enrichment in an FI program (Edwards, 1989).
Further, research shows that ESL students outperform non-ESL students in French proficiency (Swain &
Lapkin, 1991; Bild & Swain, 1989, as cited in de Courcy, 2002). These authors argued that second
language knowledge facilitates the integration of French into language learning; therefore, ESL students
should not be excluded from FI programs. In fact, the meta-linguistic awareness of multilingual children
provides them with an ability to transfer language learning strategies from their first two languages into a
third language. This may even provide ESL students with an advantage over monolingual students in FI
programs. Again, de Courcy et al., (2002) argued that ESL students should not be excluded from FI due
to the fact that their academic performance would not improve if they were transferred into the regular
English program.
In an earlier study, Genesee (1992) conducted research with Mohawk children in a French immersion
program. Results from this study showed that Mohawk children performed less well than their English
counterparts on English tests at the end of grade 3, but were able to do almost as well (with the exception
of spelling and capitalization) by the end of grade 4. Furthermore, these students demonstrated no
difficulties on math tests. It was concluded that immersion programs do not cause deficits in English
language development or academic achievement for minority language children. In fact, the immersion
opportunity gives these students the same benefits that their more advantaged peers tend to enjoy. In
another study, Dagenais and Day (1999) examined the French language proficiency of trilingual students.
Results showed that the active promotion of trilingualism at home provides ESL students with access to
cultural capital and other language resources, as well as increasing their levels of proficiency in FI
programs. In fact, immigrant parents actively promote participation in immersion programs, and regard
the preservation of their heritage language as important for securing their child’s multilingual status
(Dagenais, 2003).
It can be concluded from this research that immersion programs are an appropriate program option for all
groups of children, including those with special education needs and those for whom English is their
second language.
Employment/Work. One of the main reasons parents consider immersion programs is a belief that these
programs are educationally enriching and advantageous for their child’s future career path (Turnbull et
al., 1998). Similarly, students are motivated to register in FI in hopes of obtaining better access to jobs,
rather than for the sake of learning French itself (Edwards, 1989). Indeed, many school boards offer
additional certification at the secondary level for students who complete a specific number of credits in
French (Appendix B). In the OCDSB, students who continue taking French immersion courses at the
secondary level may be eligible to receive either: (i) an immersion certificate if he/she has successfully
completed the sequence of four courses in French immersion and a minimum of six courses in other
subjects taught in French; or, (ii) an extended French certificate if he/she has successfully completed the
sequence of four courses in extended French and a minimum of three courses in other subjects taught in
French. Over the past three years, there has been an increase in the proportion of OCDSB students in a
French immersion program in grade 8 who earned either a French immersion or an Extended French
certificate upon graduation from high school (i.e., from 35% in 2003-2004 to 42% in 2005-2006; OCDSB
Planning Department, Appendix C). These figures are relatively encouraging given that: (i) approximately
half of Senior Kindergarten students enrol in the early French immersion program; (ii) slightly more than
one-third of students are enrolled in a French immersion program in grade 8; (iii) 39% of parents of
Quality Assurance
24
Final Report: Review of FSL Programs, Elementary Phase
secondary parents indicated that their child was continuing to take subject-specific courses in French in
secondary school (OCDSB FSL Survey, Appendix A, Table A-11); and (iv) 30% of parents of secondary
school students reported that their child was currently working towards an immersion certificate (OCDSB
FSL Survey, Appendix A, Table A-12). Based on actual 31 October grade 12 student enrolments
(OCDSB Planning Department), the proportion of students earning a French immersion certificate was
12.2% in 2005-2006, an increase from 10.6% the previous year.
Hart et al., (1998) summarized the findings from several studies conducted by the Modern Language
Institute of the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE) regarding bilingual job opportunities in
the metro-Toronto area. These studies investigated the career aspirations and job prospects of immersion
graduates in the private sector only and found that:
•
while there were many advertised positions for bilingual high-school graduates in entry-level
positions (i.e., customer service representatives), employers who were surveyed typically
preferred hiring university-level graduates.
•
French language skills were not rated as important for promotion within these organizations, and
thus promotional opportunities in the private sector were not likely to be enhanced by
bilingualism.
•
there was wide-spread skepticism from employers that graduates of school-based immersion
programs were not suitable candidates for bilingual positions.
•
a large proportion of immersion graduates do have adequate French proficiency skills for
employers who function in predominately English-speaking areas.
•
many immersion students could fill bilingual positions, especially those not requiring writing in
French.
•
career expectations of immersion students are high, as is their desire to continue with postsecondary education. In fact, FI students believe that knowing French gives them a competitive
edge in the job market; however, occupational aspirations of FI graduates exceed the availability
of the type of bilingual job opportunities in the private sector.
In a subsequent report, Lapkin (2004) found that at least half of the immersion students surveyed
indicated that French helped them secure employment. In addition, although the sample size was small, a
report from Alberta (Public Service Commission, 2004) notes that immersion programs produce students
who perform well on government tests that are used to classify candidates’ proficiency (i.e., functional
bilingualism at the “B” level). In contrast, a 2004 survey of 105 Canadian university students revealed
that their experience in a core French program did not lead to bilingual job opportunities due to
inadequate French skills (Canadian Parents for French, 2004).
SECTION SUMMARY
FSL Programs
This section of the report described the FSL programs currently recognized by the Ontario Ministry of
Education – core French, extended French, and French immersion – as well as, an alternative approach to
delivering French instruction to non-Francophone children that has had limited uptake in Ontario to date
(i.e., Intensive French). Each program serves its own purpose, with core French focusing more on the
development of basic communication skills, whereas the Extended/Immersion program is aimed at
providing students with greater opportunity to develop strong communication skills in a second language.
While a majority of the English language school districts in Ontario offer a French immersion program,
most provide access to the program through a single entry point; the OCDSB is the only school district to
offer three separate entry points for French immersion.
Quality Assurance
25
Final Report: Review of FSL Programs, Elementary Phase
Core French. Research has shown that 85% of FSL students in Canada are enrolled in this type of
program. In the OCDSB, this figure is somewhat lower at approximately two-thirds of all students. When
asked to provide feedback through the stakeholder surveys, the current entry point of Junior Kindergarten
was preferred by a majority of respondents. Nevertheless, parents were more likely than staff to desire
more instructional time and/or longer instructional blocks.
French Immersion. There has been much debate within the immersion research as to what is an
appropriate age, or which entry point is best, to begin an immersion program in order to optimize student
learning and outcomes. When OCDSB stakeholders were asked to identify their preferred entry point, EFI
was the most frequently selected option for all respondent groups (with the exception of school
administrators who preferred MFI). The primary reasons for choosing EFI included that it’s easier for
younger children to learn a new language and/or they adapt/adjust more easily. The existing grade levels
at which students enrol in EFI (i.e., Senior Kindergarten) and MFI (i.e., grade 4) continue to be supported
by a majority of parents and staff, whereas the preferred grade level at which to enter the LFI program
was varied with a tendency for respondents to prefer an entry grade that is more consistent with an MFI
program. Parents of children in an FI program were generally more satisfied with the amount of time their
child receives in French instruction than were parents of students in the core French program.
Teaching Requirements/Qualifications
Currently, there is no national benchmark for what constitutes minimum French proficiency requirements
for a FSL teacher in Canada. Coupled with the national shortage of FSL teachers, this has created hiring
difficulties for school districts in that language requirements must often be waived in order to meet
staffing demands. In fact, the Ontario College of Teachers issues more letters of permission to uncertified
instructors than any other teacher-governing council in Canada, particularly at the secondary level. Within
the OCDSB, FSL staffing needs have been met with respect to contract vacancies, but challenges
continue to exist for staffing extended occasional teaching assignments that result from such things as
pregnancy leaves. FSL assignments in the western-most region of the district have also been challenging
to fill. In 2006-2007, approximately one-quarter of the FSL teachers hired had Temporary Letters of
Approval.
Researchers that have reviewed staffing practices have found that school boards tend to consider French
proficiency skills of the teacher to be more important than subject-matter expertise. Although critical for
program success, a knowledge of specific FSL classroom methodologies has been found to be equally
important in that a teacher’s lack of either language competency or pedagogy could result in: (i) limited
ability to plan and implement language programs and teach curriculum in specific content areas; (ii) poor
language models for students; and, (iii) limited ability to provide corrective feedback on grammatical
errors.
Teachers have frequently cited a lack of professional development opportunities as being a barrier to
providing quality programs. In a national teacher survey, however, the majority of teachers surveyed
reported that they participate in at least one PD opportunity each year. For FSL teachers in the OCDSB,
some PD opportunities are provided through the Curriculum Services Department. In 2005-2006, most
workshops were geared towards primary and junior teachers. This past year, there was more participation
from intermediate teachers and more opportunities for cross-panel collaboration, however, both teachers
and administrators continue to identify a need for more opportunities for both core French and immersion
teachers.
Quality Assurance
26
Final Report: Review of FSL Programs, Elementary Phase
Learning Environment
The environment in which students learn undoubtedly impacts on their success, whether it’s language
acquisition or academics. As such, an understanding of pedagogy within the various French immersion
programs is important. Specifically, research has typically found that a more communicative approach is
used in EFI programs, whereas a more formative approach is used in LFI programs, which could explain
differences in the performance (i.e., oral communication and/or writing) of students from these programs.
This section also highlights the importance of having language models that are able to correct
communication errors, thereby resulting in less semantic confusion and comprehension difficulties for
students. It has been suggested that interaction with francophones through collaborative partnerships with
members of the community could be one way of enhancing the sociolinguistic learning environment.
Another factor related to the learning environment is school organization. That is, whether a dual track
(English and French immersion) or single track (one or the other) model is best for student learning.
When OCDSB stakeholders were asked to identify which model they preferred, dual track was selected
most often across all groups (i.e., parents, teachers, and administrators). The reasons cited for their
selection included: (i) that it provides a more balanced learning environment; (ii) there is less disruption
to students should they experience difficulty and wish to change programs; (iii) it provides parents with
more program options from which to choose. For those respondents preferring the single track model, the
reason most frequently cited was that the fully-immersed environment provides students with the greatest
opportunity to develop their language skills in French.
Language of instruction is another aspect of the learning environment that is considered important.
Indeed, perceptions of OCDSB stakeholders were consistent with what has been reported repeatedly in
the French immersion literature for decades; that is, some subjects (such as the social sciences) better lend
themselves to French instruction than others. As such, there is a trend in Ontario school districts for
offering these areas of the curriculum in French, while others (such as math, science, and technology) are
typically offered in English. Despite these trends, some researchers have found that the effectiveness of a
subject being taught in French is influenced more the pedagogical approach of the teacher than the
language in which the lessons were taught. Within the OCDSB, stakeholders indicated a need for
consistency across the district with respect to the subjects being taught in French.
Finally, in order to deliver a quality program, access to both human and material resources is imperative.
Researchers have found that FSL teachers are in need of more support in terms of dedicated classroom
space, access to consultants for special needs students, funding for activities, and a greater supply of
French-speaking occasional teachers. Indeed, these findings were echoed in the responses received from
OCDSB staff during the stakeholder consultation. Further, 2007-2008 OCDSB staffing figures tend to
support the notion that resources for students with special needs (i.e., SELCs, LSTs, EAs) are more
readily available in schools that offer an English program, compared to those that offer only French
immersion.
Student Outcomes
As with teachers, there is no national consensus for language proficiency benchmarks or for measures of
assessing French skills of high school graduates. Not surprisingly, therefore, research studies that have
focused on language proficiency produce varying results. Taken together, however, research has
demonstrated that students who are enrolled in an EFI program typically possess better oral language
skills than students who enrol at a later age. The differences between the writing skills of students in the
various FI programs are not as clear.
Quality Assurance
27
Final Report: Review of FSL Programs, Elementary Phase
In addition to language proficiency, there has been considerable debate in the literature as to whether an
immersion environment hinders or enhances academic achievement. Research that has been conducted in
this area suggests that although the introduction of an FSL program may initially result in deficits in
subject-matter learning and a temporary lag in English development, the extent of the delay is dependent
upon the amount of prior learning in a core French program and the intensity of the immersion program.
In fact, studying a second language may actually have a positive influence on learning. Analyses of the
grades 3 and 6 EQAO results for reading, writing, and mathematics (in the literature and OCDSB) support
the notion that academic outcomes of students are not negatively affected as a result of being in an
immersion environment. There is also evidence that students for whom English is not their first language
and those with special needs can benefit from an immersion environment provided that they receive the
appropriate supports.
Beyond academic outcomes, there is also the belief that enrolment in an immersion program will be
advantageous for post-secondary pursuits. A review of job opportunities in the metro-Toronto area about
a decade ago, however, found that while there were many advertised positions for bilingual high-school
graduates in entry-level positions, employers typically preferred hiring university-level graduates to fill
the vacancies. Further, French language skills were not rated as important for promotion within these
organizations.
EQUITABLE ACCESS TO FSL PROGRAMS AND
VIABILITY AND SUSTAINABILITY IN STUDENT ENROLMENTS
Two separate, but related, objectives of the FSL review are:
• to ensure that students throughout the school district have equitable access to FSL programs;
and,
• to ensure that FSL programs have viable and sustainable enrolments.
Equity of access to immersion programs has been identified as a major challenge for school districts in
Ontario (CPF, 2006). The reason for this being that FSL program offerings are inconsistent across
districts which impacts enrollment patterns and retention rates in immersion programs. The concept of
equity refers to such things as:
• all students, including those in rural areas, having access to the program (this could include the
availability of transportation);
• enrolment in a program is capped and monitored, and action is taken when shifts in enrolment
indicate that students do not have access to particular programs;
• remedial assistance is available to students with learning disabilities; and,
• fees are not charged in order to participate in a program.
(adapted from Canadian Parents for French, 2006).
Characteristics of Students Enrolled in FSL Programs
With over 90 percent of non-French speaking students enrolled in core French programs across Canada, it
has become a major focus of research (Lapkin, 2004). For example, Mady (2003) examined motivation to
study core French in a secondary school by comparing the attitudes of Canadian-born students in two
grade 9 core French classes (applied vs. academic) to those of immigrants who spoke a language other
than English or French at home. Results from this study support the notion that ESL students were more
motivated to study French than both groups, though the difference was smaller in the academic group.
Quality Assurance
28
Final Report: Review of FSL Programs, Elementary Phase
The researcher suggested that ESL students may have responded more positively to core French because
of their experience learning languages, providing them with a level of comfort and confidence.
Immersion programs have traditionally been viewed as being elitist. However, Dube and MacFarlane
(1991) argued that while this may have been the case in the initial stages of implementation, EFI typically
serves a more heterogeneous student population in terms of cognitive ability and social background. The
reason for this is that parents of children in SK have little knowledge of their child’s academic ability
because it has not yet been formally assessed. By grade 4 or grade 7, however, parental decisions to
register in MFI and/or LFI programs are based more on a child’s academic ability, resulting in more
homogeneous groupings than those found in the EFI program. Nevertheless, there are some exceptions:
•
MFI tends to attract immigrant children more than the other immersion options, given that
immigrant parents tend to want their children to be well-grounded in L2 (English); and,
•
LFI is a select group of highly-motivated and higher-ability students, and the decision to enroll in
an LFI program is influenced more by the students themselves (Dingle Drover, 1988; Netten &
Bartlett, 1994, as cited in Wesche et al., 1996; Hart et al., 1998).
Despite these research findings, however, OCDSB principals/vice-principals and teachers continue to
report concerns that the FI program acts as a streaming mechanism for higher-performing students,
resulting in a stratification of schools and possibly even classes within schools.
Socioeconomics. According to Statistics Canada (2004), there is a strong relationship between reading
achievement and socio-economic status (SES). When considering level of education and career
information for immersion programs, however, Dicks (2001) found more similarities than differences
between students in immersion and those in the English programs. Other researchers have found that the
EFI program tends to be more heterogeneous in terms of SES (Dube & MacFarlane, 1991). Specifically,
the majority of families in both programs had a university diploma and worked as professionals; however,
the percentages were approximately 10% higher for immersion families. Similarly, Hart, Lapkin and
Swain (1998) reported an overrepresentation of families with high SES in immersion programs (i.e.,
parents of immersion students were twice as likely to have a managerial position). This is particularly true
in Ontario, but not in several other Canadian provinces (Statistics Canada, 2004).
Gender. Research has shown that more girls than boys participate in Canadian French immersion
programs (Statistics Canada, 2004a). In fact, girls accounted for three out of five immersion students in
Ontario, based on results from the 2000 Program for International Student Assessment (PISA; Statistics
Canada, 2004a). One suggested reason for this under-representation has been that girls tend to develop
language skills more easily than boys. As such, they may be given more favorable consideration for entry
into an early immersion program (Statistics Canada, 2004b). Within the OCDSB, however, this is not as
much of a concern given that there are no “prerequisites” for students entering these programs. In his
study examining gender differences in grade 9 core French programs, Kissau (2006) found that societal
perceptions deeply influence boys’ motivation to pursue core French in secondary school.
These patterns in enrolment by gender are supported by our own statistics (OCDSB Planning Department,
Appendix C). Specifically, in 2006-2007:
•
55% of the students enrolled in an elementary EFI program (SK to grade 8) were girls compared
to 45% who were boys (this 10% enrolment differential between boys and girls has been
consistent for the past three years).
•
57% of students enrolled in an elementary MFI program (grades 4-8) were girls compared to
43% who were boys (although the trend for the past three years has been for a greater proportion
of girls than boys to be enrolled in this program, the difference between girls and boys has
fluctuated from a low of 12% in 2005 to a high of 18% in 2004); and,
Quality Assurance
29
Final Report: Review of FSL Programs, Elementary Phase
•
of the students enrolled in the LFI program (grades 7 and 8), 63% were girls compared to 37%
who were boys, by far the greatest gap in enrolment over the past three years.
Students with Special Needs. There is some controversy in the field of education concerning whether or
not students who are learning disabled and/or language impaired are suitable for FI programs. First, it is
important to distinguish between academic success in subject matter material and success in learning a
second language. Studies have shown that underdevelopment in the brain, specifically in the temporal
lobe, may explain the lag in academic performance of special needs students enrolled in an EFI program
when compared to their peers (Trites & Price, 1976, 1977, 1980; Trites & Moretti, 1986, as cited in
Edwards, 1989). The main finding, however, is that although predictive of academic ability, a low IQ is
not necessarily a predictor of success in L2 acquisition.
Indeed, several researchers have found that special needs students can be successful in a French
immersion environment (Dube & MacFarlane, 1991; Rousseau, 1999; Dicks & Rehorick, 2003).
Specifically, students with special needs have an opportunity to develop positive attitudes toward
themselves, develop skills that are beneficial for learning in other subjects, and can successfully acquire
L2 skills given the early establishment of realistic academic expectations. In addition, Canadian Parents
for French (2006) have identified the need for more support services and resources for FSL programs in
Ontario that are specifically tailored to suit the needs of learning disabled students in a second language
context (e.g., special education, literacy, numeracy).
Statistics from the OCDSB Planning Department (Appendix C) show that, while there are exceptional
students (including gifted) enrolled in each of the elementary program streams throughout our district, the
majority of them are in an English program (i.e., specialized class, English, Alternative). Of the
exceptional students enrolled in a French immersion program, many have been identified as being Gifted.
English Language Learners (ELLs). There is a prevailing perception amongst parents, particularly
immigrant parents, that it is important to develop proficiency in the English language before attempting to
learn French in school (Edwards, 1989; Parkin et al., as cited in Wesche, et al., 1996). Nevertheless,
research indicates that immersion programs are valuable for ESL students, including those who may be
at-risk academically. Specifically, Cummins (1979) argued that languages are interdependent, and that the
underlying cognitive processes involved in second language acquisition are similar to those which are
developed in the first language (i.e., the process developed in learning to write in English does not need to
be re-learned in French).
Similarly, in her review of the Federal Government’s, Plan 2013, Strategies for a National Approach in
Second Language Education, Lapkin (2005) concluded that ELLs are often excluded from French
programs at the secondary school level due to strict district policies and/or procedures which limit course
options for these students. Given that ELL students tend to be successful language learners, however, she
recommended that FSL programs be more accessible to this group. Further, Dagenais et al., (2006)
discussed literacy practices and teacher discourse in classrooms and found that literacy practices of ESL
children are often mediated by social and linguistic factors which are tied to teacher expectations.
From data obtained from the Trillium Student Information System (OCDSB Planning Department, May
25, 2007, Appendix C), approximately 24% of elementary students in grades JK through 8 have been
identified as not having English as their first language, and a similar proportion have indicated that they
do not speak English at home. These students are distributed across all programs (i.e., English, EFI, MFI,
LFI, Alternative, and specialized), however, there is significantly fewer students with these characteristics
in the EFI program compared to the other program streams, which range from 22% in specialized classes
to 34% in MFI.
Quality Assurance
30
Final Report: Review of FSL Programs, Elementary Phase
Enrolment Patterns
Enrolment patterns over the past 10 years in OCDSB elementary schools indicate that although the
district has been experiencing a decline in overall enrolment since October 2001, enrolment (and
proportion of students) in French immersion programs, particularly in EFI and to a lesser extent MFI, has
been increasing. The following table shows the proportion of OCDSB elementary students enrolled in
each program stream for the past five years (OCDSB Planning Department, March 2007; see Appendix C
for more detailed information):
Table 6: Proportion of Elementary Student Enrolment by Program, 5-Year History
Year
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Total
Enrolment
50,663
49,802
48,680
47,670
47,330
English
Alternative
66%
65%
63%
62%
61%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
Gifted
English
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
EFI
MFI
LFI
26%
27%
28%
29%
31%
1%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
Gifted
FI
<1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
Accessibility of FSL programs
Currently, the OCDSB offers an English program that includes a core French component, as well as three
separate entry points into French immersion. While all students residing within the OCDSB jurisdiction
have designated schools for the English, EFI and LFI programs, not all students have designated access to
an MFI program. Indeed, there are only eight OCDSB elementary schools that offer an MFI program and
all are located in the western/central areas of the city of Ottawa and the geographic area served by these
centres is significantly larger compared to the attendance boundaries for English, EFI, and LFI. Typically,
students who reside east of Anderson Road or south of Leitrim and Bankfield Roads have no designated
MFI school (OCDSB Planning Department, April 2007; see maps in Appendix C for more detailed
information). While students may apply for a transfer to attend a school outside their designated
attendance boundary, the Board’s current policy P.068.TRA – Student Transportation does not provide
transportation for students attending another school for this particular reason.
Attrition/Retention Rates
Research conducted by Wesche et al. (1996) found attrition rates to be higher in EFI programs compared
to LFI programs. An examination of attrition rates from extended programs demonstrated that these
programs, which feature increased French exposure, tend to yield higher rates of retention through to the
end of high school (MacFarlane, 2005). Yet other research has found the highest attrition rates among
students in the LFI program (Edwards, 1989). When OCDSB parents of elementary children who had
previously been enrolled in a French immersion program were asked to indicate why they had withdrawn
their child from the program, the most frequently cited reasons included: program difficulty, inability to
help their child with homework, and/or identification of a learning disability.
Within the OCDSB, retention rates are calculated based on the difference in enrolment in a specific
program from October 31 one year to October 31 the next. The following table displays 1-year, 3-year,
and 5-year average retention rates by grade for the various programs in our district (OCDSB Planning
Department, March 2007, Appendix C). The data shows that year-over-year retention rates tend to be
highest in the English program due in part to students exiting immersion programs. Year-over-year
attrition rates in immersion programs, averaged over a 3-year period, are as follows: 6% in EFI, 10% in
MFI, and 7% in LFI. Because the length of the program varies from nine years in EFI to five years in MFI
Quality Assurance
31
Final Report: Review of FSL Programs, Elementary Phase
and two years in LFI, the cohort retention rates based on a 3-year average are: 59% in EFI, 61% in MFI,
and 93% in LFI.
Table 7: OCDSB Average Retention Rates by Grade and Program
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
105%
106%
108%
105%
105%
106%
96%
94%
94%
102%
103%
105%
102%
102%
103%
89%
88%
89%
102%
102%
102%
Early French Immersion Program
5-year
98%
90%
92%
3-year
98%
91%
92%
1-year
99%
90%
91%
93%
94%
93%
93%
93%
93%
96%
97%
97%
93%
93%
95%
97%
98%
98%
85%
86%
84%
91%
90%
97%
87%
91%
91%
94%
95%
95%
English Program
5-year
109%
3-year
107%
1-year
107%
Middle French Immersion Program
5-year
3-year
1-year
Late French Immersion Program
5-year
3-year
1-year
91%
93%
95%
Currently, students from all three elementary program streams merge into one common program in
secondary school. Many French immersion students decide not to continue in French immersion in high
school in spite of the fact that French immersion is available in most secondary schools within our
jurisdiction. One of the questions posed to parents of secondary students in the OCDSB as part of the
stakeholder survey was whether or not their child continued to take subject-specific courses in high
school. Only 39% of respondents reported that their son/daughter was continuing to take courses in
French at the secondary level, another 31% indicated that they were not, and 30% did not respond
(OCDSB FSL Survey, Appendix A, Tables A-11 and A-12).
According to the federal government (Government of Canada, 2004), both core French and French
immersion programs experience a high rate of attrition at the high school level. The following reasons
have been cited for this phenomenon: (i) lack of a wide range of course options, particularly in science
and math; (ii) a perception that preparation for university is best done in English; (iii) a general fatigue
with studying in French; and, (iv) teaching methods which do not always promote active, communicative
learning (Rehorick, 2004). Indeed, the views of OCDSB secondary parents, as obtained from the
stakeholder surveys, echoed these findings. This topic will be dealt with in greater detail during the
secondary phase of the FSL Review.
Split-Grade Classes
In addition to program enrolment and attrition/retention rates, another aspect of program viability and
sustainability could include the number of students in split-grade classes. For example, if there are
insufficient numbers of students in a particular grade and program in a school, it may be necessary to
Quality Assurance
32
Final Report: Review of FSL Programs, Elementary Phase
combine two or more grade levels of students to comprise a single class. It should be noted, however, that
there may also be other factors (e.g., availability of qualified staff, class size caps, collective agreements)
that contribute to a school’s decision to combine classes across grades. When OCDSB parents were asked
to identify any concerns they had with the French immersion programs, large class sizes and the issue of
split-grade classes were frequently cited. It was suggested that smaller class sizes or providing 1:1 support
for students with different abilities/learning styles would help address student needs.
Data from the OCDSB Planning Department (Appendix C) shows that the proportion of elementary splitgrade classes (JK to grade 8) is on the rise, from 18% in 2002-2003 to 22% in 2006-2007. It is projected
that in the 2007-2008 school year, close to 28% of elementary classes will combine two or more grade
levels of students. Split-grade classes are most prominent in the Alternative program, where close to twothirds of the classes are combined across multiple grades. In 2006-2007, the proportion of split grade
classes in the remaining programs ranged from 15% in MFI to 21% in English.
The information presented in this section of the report was intended to highlight the elements most
commonly associated with program viability and sustainability. Indeed, many of the concerns raised by
OCDSB administrators and staff regarding the existing FI programs included the availability of programs
in all schools/communities, low enrolment, school organization and size, as well as retention rates. How
these issues are addressed will be dealt with during the next phase of the review by the sub-committee
established to look specifically at the French immersion program model, as well as through student
accommodation studies and the Board’s strategic plan.
SECTION SUMMARY
Ensuring that all students have access to FSL programs and that student enrolments are both viable and
sustainable can be monitored by looking at enrolment patterns and the characteristics of students who
participate in the program.
Student Characteristics
Historically, French immersion has been perceived to be an elitist program, attracting children from
higher socioeconomic backgrounds and who may be of higher academic ability. Researchers have
observed that the different entry points, however, tend to serve very different student populations and
needs. For example, EFI tends to serve a more heterogeneous student population with respect to cognitive
ability simply because at the time a child enters the program there is very little evidence of the child’s
academic abilities. Alternatively, MFI tends to be more attractive to immigrant families who want their
child to be well-grounded in their second language (i.e., English) before learning a third, while LFI tends
to serve a more homogeneous group of students with higher academic abilities and motivation.
Trends that have emerged from both the literature and OCDSB enrolment patterns with respect to the
characteristics of students who are enrolled in FI programs include: (i) more girls than boys enrol in FI;
(ii) students with special needs and English language learners are more likely to enrol in an English
program than in French immersion.
Enrolment Trends and Access to Programs
Over the past 10 years, overall elementary enrolment in the OCDSB (and across the province) has been
declining. Despite this trend, however, there has been an increased interest in French immersion,
particularly EFI. In October 2006, 35% of our elementary students were enrolled in a French immersion
program compared to only 29% five years prior.
Quality Assurance
33
Final Report: Review of FSL Programs, Elementary Phase
In addition to overall enrolment, retention and attrition rates are often used as a measure of program
viability and sustainability. Figures from the OCDSB Planning Department show that year-over-year
average retention rates tend to be highest in the English program due in part to students exiting immersion
programs. Year-over-year attrition rates, when averaged over a 3-year period, tend to be highest in MFI
and lowest for EFI and LFI.
Although the number of split grade classes can sometimes be perceived to be a measure of program
viability/sustainability, there are other reasons that may require the creation of these combined grade
organizations in a school. For example, availability of qualified staff, class size caps, collective
agreements. Within the OCDSB, classrooms comprised of students from more than one grade level are
actually more prevalent in the Alternative and English programs.
All OCDSB students have access to an FSL program, whether it is core or immersion. Of the three
immersion entry points however, MFI is the only one in which not all students who reside within the
jurisdiction have a designated school site for accessing this program. Therefore, students who reside in
the eastern- and southern-most regions of the school district must apply for an MFI program through a
cross-boundary transfer application that does not provide for transportation of students to and from
school.
COST EFFECTIVENESS
The final objective of the FSL review is:
• to ensure that FSL programs are cost effective.
It is important, therefore, to have a clear understanding of the amount of funding available and how it is
being allocated as well as the costs associated with the delivery of FSL programs (adapted from Canadian
Parents for French, 2006).
Revenues
In Ontario, the Ministry of Education provides school districts with funding specifically for French as a
Second Language Programs. This funding grant is based on: (i) the type of program (i.e., core, extended,
or immersion); (ii) the number of minutes of French instruction per day; and (iii) the number of students
in each program. The following table shows the additional per-pupil funding for the different FSL
program options:
Table 8: French as a Second Language Amount, 2007-2008 Ministry Grants
Program
Minutes of Instruction
Core French
20 – 59 min. per day
Extended French
60 – 149 min. per day
French Immersion
more than 150 min. per day
French Immersion
more than 75 min. per day
(Ministry of Education, Spring 2007)
Grade
4 to 8
4 to 8
1 to 8
JK, SK
Per-Pupil Funding 2007-2008
$264.43
$301.27
$337.03
$337.03
Based on the 2007-2008 per-pupil funding amounts, and assuming current entry points and continuation
in the same program from JK through grade 8, the following table provides estimates of the funds that
would be generated for each elementary student for a variety of FSL program options:
Quality Assurance
34
Final Report: Review of FSL Programs, Elementary Phase
Table 9: Per-Pupil FSL Grant Estimates by Program Delivery Option for the Duration of the
Program
Program
Core French (JK-8)7
Core French (JK-3); Extended French (4-8)
Core French (JK); French Immersion (SK-8)8
Core French (JK-3); French Immersion (4-8)9
Core French (JK-6); French Immersion (7-8)10
French Immersion (JK/SK & 4-8); Extended French (1-3)
Core French (JK-3); Extended French (4-6); French Immersion (7-8)
Total FSL Funding Per-Pupil
(based on 2007-2008 grants)
$1,322.15
$1,506.35
$2,864.76
$1,685.15
$1,467.35
$2,022.18
$1,577.87
In 2006-2007, the OCDSB received approximately $11 million in FSL grants, the majority of which was
generated by students in the elementary panel. OCDSB parents were of the opinion that there is
insufficient funding to support all programs, and that perhaps the Board should investigate the possibility
of developing partnerships with the Federal Government Official Languages Programs to seek federal
funding.
In an effort to demonstrate the magnitude of the effect that elimination of existing OCDSB French
immersion programs would have, the following table has been prepared using the 2006-2007 FSL perpupil grants and based on 31 October 2006 enrolment figures (OCDSB Planning Department, Appendix
C).
Table 10: Estimated Impact on OCDSB Funding as a Result of Eliminating Existing FSL Programs
Program
Core*
EFI
MFI
LFI
October 2006
Eligible Enrolment
15,744
13,533.5
1,165
864
Estimated FSL Funding Revenues
(based on 2006-2007 funding levels)
$4,068,722
$4,457,800
$383,739
$284,593
*
A core French program is mandated by the Ministry of Education and requires students to accumulate a minimum of 600 hours
of instruction by the end of grade 8.
Declining enrolment and changes to FSL funding aside, and assuming that students in the existing
program(s) are redirected to a core French program, the OCDSB could lose the following revenues
annually:
• $2.7 million if the existing EFI program was discontinued (i.e., 6,618 of the 13,533.5 students
would be eligible for the core French amount);
• $82,668 if the existing MFI program was discontinued (i.e., all 1,165 students would be eligible
for the core French amount); and,
• $61,309 if the existing LFI program was discontinued (i.e., all 864 students would be eligible for
the core French amount).
Based on these calculations, it seems that the elimination of the EFI program would have the most
profound impact on annual OCDSB revenues. Of course there are many other scenarios that could impact
7
English program currently offered in the OCDSB.
Early French immersion program currently offered in the OCDSB.
9
Middle French immersion program currently offered in the OCDSB.
10
Late French immersion program currently offered in the OCDSB.
8
Quality Assurance
35
Final Report: Review of FSL Programs, Elementary Phase
in a positive way on the revenues generated through these grants. For example, the elimination of a later
FI entry point could yield increased revenues in cases where parents opt to enrol their child in an earlier
immersion program.
Costs
The costs associated with delivering a program of any kind are dependent upon a variety of factors, such
as staffing, resources/materials to support program delivery, transportation, etc. As such, it is difficult to
estimate the true “costs” of delivering a French immersion program without knowing program location,
how many programs are offered at a particular location and throughout the school district, and whether or
not students would be eligible for transportation. Further, because the revenues generated through the FSL
grant are not enveloped specifically for the delivery of FSL programs, it is impossible to provide figures
that explicity show FSL revenues compared to expenditures. Alternatively, staff has compared the cost
and availability of a sampling of French resources to support English and immersion programs, as shown
in the table below. During our search of resources, it was clear that English resources to tend to be more
readily available, but that when French resources are available (that are comparable to those for English),
additional costs may be incurred. Given this information, it appears that the revenues derived from the
FSL grants would cover the incremental instructional costs associated with the delivery of French as a
second language programs.
Table 10: Comparison of Costs for a Sample of Texts to Support the Language Arts and
Mathematics Curriculum
Subject
Language Arts –
Porcupine Collection/La Collection Porc-épic
Mathematics
Mathematics 4/Accent Mathématique 4
Grade
Cost (English)
Cost (French)
Primary
$6.95
$6.95
4
$34.95
$39.95
SECTION SUMMARY
French as a Second Language programs offered in Ontario school districts receive a funding grant from
the Ministry of Education that is based on the type of program, the number of minutes of French
instruction per day, and the number of students enrolled in the program. In 2007-2008, this per-pupil
funding ranges from $264.43 for core French (from grades 4 to 8) to $337.03 for French immersion
programs (from JK through grade 8). A program that sees students entering a French immersion program
in JK and remaining in it until the end of grade 8 would maximize the revenues a school board would
generate from this source.
It is difficult to estimate the costs associated with delivering a specific program, since much of it is
dependent upon the program location, whether or not transportation would be provided, and whether or
not students would even enrol in it. Nevertheless, costing information for a sampling of resources that are
available in both English and French has been provided. Certainly, English resources are more readily
available than are French resources. When French translations or comparable resources are available,
additional costs may be incurred.
Quality Assurance
36
Final Report: Review of FSL Programs, Elementary Phase
CONCLUSIONS
The purpose of this report was to provide detailed information on FSL programs as they relate to those
that are recognized by the Ontario Ministry of Education and that are currently offered in OCDSB
elementary schools. As such, the core French, extended French and French immersion programs were
described – each serving its own purpose. That is, while core French is intended to support students in the
development of basic communication skills, extended/immersion programs provide students with a
greater opportunity to develop strong communication skills in a second language. Overall, research has
shown that all FI programs promote advanced French language skills. Nevertheless, immersion students
who proceed through to the end of secondary school yield high levels of French proficiency, but not as
high as native French speakers.
The majority of students in Canada are not enrolled in a French immersion program. Much of the debate
within the immersion literature has focused on the appropriateness of this type of program for certain
groups of students (e.g., ELLs, students with special needs, students in their early years of schooling).
While it is acknowledged that early on this may have been the case, more recent research suggests that
immersion programs are not elitist (particularly in EFI), and that there can, and should, be an appropriate
program option for all groups of children, including those with special education needs and those for
whom English is their second language. While OCDSB enrolment statistics show that there are ELLs and
special needs students enrolled in all programs, they are more likely to enrol in the English stream.
Whether or not a parent decides to enrol their child in a particular program is dependent upon a number of
factors, however, including their child’s: ability to adjust to challenging situations, first language skills,
work habits, family support, emotional development, interest in learning French, social skills and French
skills. Likewise, the decision to withdraw from a program may be influenced by similar factors.
A major focus of this report was to examine the outcomes of students enrolled in FSL programs in terms
of language proficiency and academic achievement. In order to do this, one must have a clear sense of the
impact that the learning environment has on student learning. That is: (i) the importance of having
teachers that can model the language and correct communication errors; (ii) the ability for students to
interact with francophones and to learn about the French culture; and, (iii) the accessibility and
availability of both human and material resources. Evidence from studies that have looked at student
performance on various measures typically shows that students in EFI tend to be stronger than students
from the two other entry points, particularly in oral language skills. In the area of writing, students’ scores
from middle and late immersion may be a result of a more formal pedagogical approach in teaching
styles. In summary, this research suggests that of the three entry points, early French immersion produces
the highest level of French proficiency.
In terms of academic performance in subjects such as English or math, research has shown that: (i) aside
from a temporary developmental lag in EFI, French immersion students do not lose any ground in their
academic subjects; and (ii) an immersion environment positively affects academic achievement. These
findings are also true for students with special needs and English language learners. The findings from
national studies on employment and/or work demonstrate that despite the limited bilingual job
opportunities available to FI graduates, the primary motivator for parents to enroll their children in FI is to
increase employability. Finally, there were several reasons cited for attrition from FSL programs, which
must be taken into consideration when making any changes to existing programs.
Rehorick (2004) argued that while the educational system can provide a solid foundation on which to
build, it cannot produce students with competence equal to a monolingual native speaker. It is not
reasonable to expect the educational system to produce graduates who are perfectly balanced bilinguals.
Thus, districts should provide a feasible threshold level of bilingualism for different situations in which
one might require two languages. Indeed, Wesche 1992, (as cited in Lapkin, 2004) supported this idea
Quality Assurance
37
Final Report: Review of FSL Programs, Elementary Phase
stating that it is unrealistic to expect immersion graduates to seek personal and cultural contact with the
L2 group on the basis of an essentially school-bound program, suggesting that there may be aspects to
language learning which a student cannot achieve in school, or at least, will not be learned ‘incidentally’.
Dube and MacFarlane (1991) supported the idea of placing greater emphasis on French speaking skills,
given that the main reason parents cite for enrolling their child in an FI program is to increase their
employability.
Based on the research evidence, Turnbull et al. (2001) cautioned school districts against making any
fundamental changes to the percentage of time devoted to English language instruction and/or
mathematics instruction. Rather, it is generally believed that immersion programs actually enhance
English language learning over the long term, and that second language learning is beneficial for the
development of cognitive, personal and social skills (Netten & Germain, 2004).
There are several different options available to school districts in Ontario with respect to French as a
second language program models, some of which are mandatory (i.e., core French) and some of which
provide a certain level of discretion and flexibility in terms of framework (e.g., French immersion,
extended French and/or intensive French).
Even within program models, school districts in Ontario may opt for different French immersion entry
points at the early, middle or late grade levels, provided that Ministry of Education guidelines governing
FSL programs are met. Research that has examined the different program models/types suggests that each
of these options serves a different student population and meets the particular needs of the community the
program serves. In addition, given that the majority of FSL students are enrolled in a core French program
and that the Federal government has set a target of doubling the proportion of functionally bilingual
graduates by 2013, there is a need to re-examine the core French model in terms of French proficiency
outcomes. Certainly, feedback from OCDSB stakeholders supported the need for improving the core
French delivery within our school district.
Of course, there are several factors that influence the particular program and/or framework that a district
can offer. For example, the board’s requirements for qualified teaching staff are influenced by teachers’
French proficiency levels and professional development needs. In addition, several factors related to the
learning environment of FSL students should be considered including, pedagogical differences in
immersion programs (i.e., formative vs. communicative approaches); the appropriate amount of
interaction with Francophones to develop socio-linguistic competence; the correct mix of language of
instruction in the classroom; and the availability and allocation of resources and supports for FSL
teachers.
According to a report prepared for the Edmonton Public School District (2002), positive district support
for successful French Language Programs demonstrated the following characteristics:
ƒ There is an endorsement of the importance of learning French and a policy stating the district’s
commitment to French language learning.
ƒ Programming conditions (e.g., student eligibility, equitable access, instructional time) are defined
by the district, including the provision of sufficient funding and the hiring of competent teachers.
ƒ Lifelong professional development is encouraged and promoted for all FSL programs.
For many school boards, however, the implementation of successful FI programs is prohibitive because
of: (i) the cost of immersion resources; (ii) the lack of teacher proficiency in French; (iii) limited
enrolment and small program streams; and, (iv) willingness of the parent(s) to support the program
(MacFarlane, 2005). Certainly, our own investigation of French resources suggested that while they may
be more scarce than those for the English program, when they are available the difference in cost is
Quality Assurance
38
Final Report: Review of FSL Programs, Elementary Phase
marginal to none. Edwards (1989) argued that if only one entry point could reasonably be offered, it
should be the one that is most equitable and accessible for all students.
Quality Assurance
39
Final Report: Review of FSL Programs, Elementary Phase
References
Bayliss, D. & Vignola, M.J. (2000). Assessing language proficiency of FSL teacher candidates: what
makes a successful candidate. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 57(2). Toronto, ON:
University of Toronto Press.
Bournot-Trites, M., & Reeder, K. (2001). Interdependence revisited: Mathematics achievement in an
intensified French immersion program. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 58(1). Toronto,
ON: University of Toronto Press.
Bournot-Trites, M., Tellowitz, U. (2002). Report of Current Research on the Effect of Second Language
Learning on First Language Literacy Skills. Halifax: Atlantic Provinces Education Foundation.
Canadian Association of Second Language Teachers (CASLT). (February 26, 2007). Ontario schools will
pilot intensive core French classes. www.caslt.org/Info/pressrelease_feb26_2007.htm
Canadian Parents for French. (2006). The State of French-Second-Language Education in Canada
Report. Ottawa: Canadian Parents for French.
Canadian Parents for French. (2004). The State of French-Second-Language Education in Canada
Report.Ottawa: Canadian Parents for French.
Carr, W. (1999). Fear of teaching French: Challenges faced by generalist teachers. The Canadian Modern
Language Review, 56(1). Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.
Cummins, J. (1979). Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual children.
Review of Educational Research, 49(2), 222-251.
Dagenais, D. & Day, E. (1999). Home Language Practices of Trilingual Children in French Immersion.
The Canadian Modern Language Review, 56(1), 99-123. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.
Dagenais, D. (2003). Accessing imagined communities through multilingualism and immersion
education. Journal of Language Identity and Education 2 (4).
Dagenais, D., Day E., & Toohey, K. (2006). A multilingual child’s literacy practices and contrasting
identities in the figured worlds of French immersion classrooms. The International Journal of
Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 9(2), 2006.
Day, 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).
de Courcy, M., & Burston, M. (2000). Learning Mathematics through French in Australia. Language and
Education. 14(2).
de Courcy, M., Warren, J., & Burston, M. (2002). Children from Diverse Backgrounds in an immersion
programme. Language and Education, 16(2).
Dicks, J. (2001). The French Immersion and English Programs in New Brunswick School Districts 17
and 18: A Comparison of Family Background, Factors Influencing Choice of Program, Attitudes
Quality Assurance
40
Final Report: Review of FSL Programs, Elementary Phase
Towards French Immersion and Student Performance (Final Report). Fredericton, NB: University of
New Brunswick. <http://www.unb.ca/slec/hot_topics/dicks_rep1.html>
Dicks, J., & Rehorick, S. (2003). Reflections on the Debate about Early French Immersion, Faculty of
Education, University of New Brunswick.
Dubé 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.
Edwards, H.P. (1989). Critical review of the literature on French immersion. In N. Halsall (ed.),
Immersion/regular Program Study (I/RPS). Nepean, ON: Carleton Board of Education, Research and
Planning.
Evaluation Plus Inc. (2002). Characteristics of successful French language programs. Edmonton:
Edmonton Public School District. http://www.caslt.org/pdf/Characteristics.pdf
Ewart, G., & Straw, S. (2001). Literacy instruction in two French immersion classrooms in
western Canada. Language, Culture and Curriculum,14(2).
Genesee, F. (1992). Second/foreign language immersion and at-risk English-speaking children. Foreign
Language Annals, 25(3), 199-213.
Government of Canada. (2003). The next act: New momentum for Canada’s linguistic duality - The
action plan for official language. Ottawa: ON.
Government of Canada. (2004). Plan 2013 – Strategies for a National Approach in Second Language
Education. Department of Canadian Heritage, Ottawa: ON.
Grimmett, 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. http://www.cmec.ca/stats/pcera/symposium2001/grimmett.o.en.pdf
Hart, D. Lapkin, S. & Swain, M. (1998). Characteristics of the Bilingual Private Sector Job Market with
Special Reference to French Immersion Graduates: Exploratory Studies. In Lapkin, S. (Ed.) (1998).
French second language education in Canada: Empirical studies. Toronto, ON: University of
Toronto Press.
Kissau, S. (2006). Gender differences in motivation to learn French. Canadian Modern Language Review
62(3). Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.
Knaus, V., & Nadasdi, T. (2001). Etre ou ne pas être in Immersion. The Canadian Modern Language
Review, 58(2), 287-306. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.
Landry, R., & Allard, R. (1993). Beyond Socially Naive Bilingual Education: The Effects of
Schooling and Ethnolinguistic Vitality on Additive and Subtractive Bilingualism. In L.M. Mallave (ed.),
Annual Conference Journa1. Proceedings of the National Association for Bilingual Education
Conferences. (Tucson AZ, 1990; Washington, D.C. 1991; Washington,D.C. 1993, p.I-30)
Lapkin, S. (Ed.) (1998). French second language education in Canada: Empirical studies. Toronto, ON:
University of Toronto Press.
Quality Assurance
41
Final Report: Review of FSL Programs, Elementary Phase
Lapkin, S. (2004). Rising to the Challenge: A Research Perspective on How to Double the Proportion of
Secondary School Graduates with a Functional Knowledge of their Second Official Language.
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.
Lapkin, S. (2005). Review of Plan Twenty Thirteen (2013): Strategies for a National Approach in Second
Language Education. The Canadian Modern Language Review 61 (4) pp. 587-589
Lapkin, S., MacFarlane, A., Vandergrift, L. & Hart. D. (2006). Teaching French as a Second Language in
Canada: Teachers' Perspectives, Research Report conducted in association with Canadian Teachers’
Federation, Canadian Association of Immersion Teachers, Canadian Association of Second Language
Teachers, and Department of Canadian Heritage.
MacCoubrey, S.J.; Wade-Woolley, L.; Klinger, D.; Kirby, J.R. (2004). Early Identification of At-Risk L2
Readers. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 61(1), 11-28. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto
Press.
MacFarlane, A. (2003). FSL proficiency test: A discussion concerning the possibility of a National
Proficiency Certificate based on a proficiency test for core French. A discussion paper prepared for
the Canadian Association of Second Language Teachers.
MacFarlane, A. (2005). An Examination of Intensive French: A Pedagogical Strategy for the
Improvement of FSL Outcomes in Canada. A report prepared for the Canadian Association of Second
Language Teachers.
Mady, C. J. (2003). Motivation to Study and Investment in Studying Core French in Secondary School:
Comparing ESL Students and Canadian-born Students, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario.
Ministry of Education. (Spring 2007). Education Funding: Legislative Grants, 2007-2008. Toronto, ON:
Ministry of Education, http://www.edu.gov.on.ca.
Ministry of Education. (1998). The Ontario Curriculum, French as a Second Language: Core French
Grades 4-8, Ministry of Education, http://www.edu.gov.on.ca.
Ministry of Education. (2001). The Ontario Curriculum, French As a Second Language: Extended
French Grades 4-8 and French Immersion Grades 1-8, Ministry of Education.
http://www.edu.gov.on.ca.
Mondada, L., & Pekarek-Doehler, S. (2004). Second language acquisition as situated practice: Task
accomplishment in the French second language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 88(4).
Nadasdi, T., Mougeon, R., & Rehner, K. (2005) Learning to Speak Everyday (Canadian) French. The
Canadian Modern Language Review, 61(4). Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.
Netten, J., & Germain, C. (2004). Theoretical and Research Foundations of Intensive French. The
Canadian Modern Language Review, 60(3). Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.
Ottawa-Carleton District School Board. (2002). Testing of Grade 8 Students in the Core and Immersion
Programs. Ottawa, ON: Ottawa-Carleton District School Board.
Quality Assurance
42
Final Report: Review of FSL Programs, Elementary Phase
Ottawa-Carleton District School Board. (2006). Report No. 06-090: French Immersion Review. Ottawa,
ON.
Pelletier, J. (1998). A Comparison of Children's Understanding of School in Regular English Language
and French Immersion Kindergartens. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 55(2). Toronto, ON:
University of Toronto Press.
Public Service Commission of Canada. (2004). Second Language Evaluation (SLE): A Research
Evaluation of French as a Second Language in Selected Alberta Schools. Ottawa, ON: Public Service
Commission of Canada.
Reeder, 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.
Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.
Rehner, K., & Mougeon, R. (1999). Variation in the spoken French of immersion students: To ne or not
to ne, that is the sociolinguistic question. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 56,124-154.
Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.
Rehorick, 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.
Rousseau, N. (1999). A French immersion learning disabilities program: Perspectives of students, their
parents, and their teachers. Mosaic, 6(3), 16-25.
Statistics Canada. (2004a). French immersion 30 years later, Education Matters, 2. Culture, Tourism and
the Centre for Education Statistics, Statistics Canada, Ottawa ON.
Statistics Canada. (2004b). Minority language school systems. Education Quarterly Review, 9(4)
Statistics Canada – Catalogue no. 81-003, Ottawa, ON.
Swain, M. (2001). Examining dialogue: Another approach to content specification and to validating
inferences drawn from test scores. Language Testing, 18, 319-346.
Turnbull, 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. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Turnbull M. (2000). Analyses of core French teachers' language use: A summary. Proceedings of
Bilingual Child, Global Citizen colloquium, University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, New
Brunswick (published on www.caslt.ca).
Turnbull M., Hart D., & Lapkin S. (2001). Grade 3 Immersion Students' Performance in Literacy and
Mathematics: Province-wide Results from Ontario (1998-99). The Canadian Modern Language
Review 58(1),9-26. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.
Quality Assurance
43
Final Report: Review of FSL Programs, Elementary Phase
Turnbull, M., Hart, D., & Lapkin, S. (2003). Grade 6 French immersion students' performance on largescale literacy and mathematics: Exploring two hypotheses. Alberta Journal of Educational Research,
12(10), 6-23.
Veilleux, 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.
Vandergrift, L. (2003). From prediction to reflection: Guiding students through the process of L2
listening. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 59, 425-440. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto
Press.
Vignola, M-J. (1995). The Decision-Making Processes in Native and Second Language Writing among
French Immersion Graduates. Technical report prepared for the International Centre for Research on
Language Planning. Université de Laval, Quebec.
Walsh, A., & Yeoman, E. (1999). Making Sense of the French in French Immersion: Concept
Development in Early FI. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 55(3). Toronto, ON: University
of Toronto Press.
Wesche, 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. Prepared for the Ottawa Board of Education. Ottawa: ON.
Quality Assurance
44
Appendix A
Results of the Stakeholder Surveys
Response Rates by Group
Table A-1a: Return Rates for completed surveys
Surveys
Distributed
179
Group
Elementary Principals/VPs
Surveys
Received
104
Return
Rate
58%
Margin of
Error1
+/- 6.2
Elementary Teachers
3035
1161
38%
+/- 2.3
Parents/Guardians of Elementary Students
1308
623
48%
+/- 3.9
Parents/Guardians of Secondary Students
1278
337
26%
+/- 5.3
1
The margin of error provides information as to the reliability of survey findings from a random sample of the population under
study. Using the information in the table, therefore, we can be reasonably confident (i.e., 95% of the time, or 19 times out of 20 if
we were to randomly select parents from the same population) that if 43% of elementary parents responded in particular way to a
question on this survey, that the response to that question for the entire elementary parent population would fall between 39% and
47% (i..e, +/- 3.9%).
Table A-1b: Return Rates for surveys that were not completed
returned undelivered (moved, etc.)
Parents/Guardians
of Elementary
Students
Surveys
Return
Received
Rate
9
0.7%
returned blank
child did not attend an OCDSB
elementary school
6
Parents/Guardians
of Secondary
Students
Surveys
Return
Received
Rate
23
2%
0.5%
64
5%
42
3%
Table A-1c: Return Rates for all surveys
Group
Elementary Principals/VPs
Surveys
Distributed
179
Surveys
Received
104
Return
Rate
58%
Elementary Teachers
3035
1161
38%
Parents/Guardians of Elementary Students
1308
623
48%
Parents/Guardians of Secondary Students
1278
466
37%
Quality Assurance
A1
FSL Survey Results
Section A: General Information
This section of the report provides information about program offerings, preference of programs, school
organization, factors that influence choosing them and expected levels of student proficiency.
1. Principals/Vice-Principals and Teacher Surveys
Table A-2: What grades are taught at your school?
JK – Grades 3/4/5/6
Elementary
Principals/VPs
(n=104)
53
51.0%
JK – Grade 8
33
31.7%
Grades 4/6/7/8
14
13.5%
4
3.8%
No Response
Table A-3: Excluding Junior Kindergarten, what French as a Second Language programs are available at
your school?
English
Elementary
Principals/VPs
(n=104)
29
27.9%
Elementary
Teachers
(n=1161)
285
24.5%
French Immersion
24
23.1%
328
28.3%
English and French Immersion
48
46.2%
500
43.1%
3
2.9%
48
4.1%
No Response
Table A-4: In which division(s) do you have knowledge of/or experience teaching?
Kindergarten/ Primary
Elementary
Principals/VPs
(n=104)
0
0%
Elementary
Teachers
(n=1161)
101
8.7%
14
13.5%
252
21.7%
3
2.9%
170
14.6%
Kindergarten/Primary/Junior/Intermediate
65
62.5%
176
15.2%
Primary/Junior/Intermediate
13
12.5%
142
12.2%
1
1.0%
30
2.6%
Kindergarten/Primary/Junior
Primary/Junior
No Response
Small percentages (1-6%) of principals/vice-principals and teachers have experience teaching in only one
division. The table above shows some of the more frequently occurring combinations of experience.
Quality Assurance
A2
FSL Survey Results
In which program(s) do you have knowledge of/or experience teaching?
Table A-5a:
Regular English
Elementary Principals/VPs
(n=104)
95
91.3%
Elementary Teachers
(n=1161)
636
54.8%
Core French
82
78.8%
555
47.8%
ETFI (English to FI)
67
64.4%
213
18.3%
Early French Immersion
79
76.0%
586
50.5%
Middle French Immersion
30
28.8%
127
10.9%
Late French Immersion
46
44.2%
128
11.0%
Special Education
82
78.8%
308
26.5%
English as a Second Language
57
54.8%
157
13.5%
Other
12
11.5%
79
6.8%
Tables 5b and 5c show the most frequently occurring combinations of programs.
Elementary Principals/VPs
(n=104)
17
16.3%
Table A-5b:
all programs
all programs (except MFI)
17
16.3%
all programs (except MFI and LFI)
10
9.6%
Regular English and Special Education
6
5.8%
Regular English/Core French/ETFI/Special Education
6
5.8%
No Response
2
1.9%
Core French and EFI
Elementary Teachers
(n=1161)
150
12.9%
Regular English
114
9.8%
Regular English and Special Education
92
7.9%
EFI
76
6.5%
Regular English and ETFI
50
4.3%
Regular English and Core French
41
3.5%
EFI and MFI
40
3.4%
Core French/EFI/LFI
39
3.4%
Regular English/Core French/EFI
36
3.1%
Core French
34
2.9%
Regular English/Special Education/ESL
34
2.9%
Regular English and ESL
22
1.9%
Core French/EFI/MFI
22
1.9%
Regular English/ETFI/Special Education
21
1.8%
Regular English/Core French/EFI/MFI
20
1.7%
Regular English/ETFI/Special Education/ESL
18
1.6%
No Response
30
2.6%
Table A-5c:
Quality Assurance
A3
FSL Survey Results
2. Parents/Guardians of Elementary and Secondary Students
Table A-6: What grade is your child currently in?
Parents/Guardians of
Elementary Students
(n=623)
18
2.9%
Junior Kindergarten
Parents/Guardians of
Secondary Students
(n=337)
81
24.0%
Grade 9
Senior Kindergarten
28
4.5%
Grade 10
84
24.9%
Grade 1
43
6.9%
Grade 11
87
25.8%
Grade 2
41
6.6%
Grade 12
68
20.2%
Grade 3
30
4.8%
Other
12
3.6%
Grade 4
75
12.0%
Grade 5
65
10.4%
Grade 6
70
11.2%
Grade 7
131
21.0%
Grade 8
117
18.8%
5
.8%
5
1.5%
No Response
No Response
Table A-7: Is your child currently receiving support for:
English as a Second Language
Parents/Guardians of
Elementary Students
(n=623)
12
1.9%
Parents/Guardians of
Secondary Students
(n=337)
3
0.9%
Special Education
19
3.0%
29
8.6%
Gifted
29
4.7%
37
11.0%
563
90.4%
268
79.5%
No response
What language is usually spoken at home?
Table A-8a: Parents/Guardians of Elementary Students
English
All
(n=623)
435
69.8%
English
(n=105)
75
71.4%
EFI
(n=199)
158
79.4%
MFI
(n=160)
98
61.3%
LFI
(n=159)
104
65.4%
1
0.2%
1
1.0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
13
2.1%
0
0%
7
3.5%
2
1.3%
4
2.5%
English and other
112
18.0%
17
16.2%
24
12.1%
33
20.6%
38
23.9%
French and other
1
0.2%
0
0%
1
0.5%
0
0%
0
0%
56
9.0%
10
9.5%
9
4.5%
25
15.6%
12
7.5%
5
0.8%
2
1.9%
0
0%
2
1.3%
1
0.6%
French
French and English
Other
No Response
Quality Assurance
A4
FSL Survey Results
Table A-8b: Parents/Guardians of Secondary Students
English
All
(n=337)
283
84.0%
English
(n=169)
142
84.0%
EFI
(n=114)
97
85.1%
MFI
(n=13)
11
84.6%
LFI
(n=36)
30
83.3%
French
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
French and English
5
1.5%
0
0%
3
2.6%
0
0%
0
0%
English and other
30
8.9%
17
10.1%
10
8.8%
1
7.7%
2
5.6%
French and other
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
17
5.0%
9
5.3%
3
2.6%
1
7.7%
4
11.1%
2
0.6%
1
0.6%
1
0.9%
0
0%
0
0%
Other
No Response
Table A-9: Elementary: In which program is your child currently enrolled?
Secondary: In which program was your child enrolled in grade 8?
English
Parents/Guardians of
Elementary Students
(n=623)
105
16.9%
Parents/Guardians of
Secondary Students
(n=337)
169
50.1%
Early French Immersion
199
31.9%
114
33.8%
Middle French Immersion
160
25.7%
13
3.9%
Late French Immersion
159
25.5%
36
10.7%
0%
5
1.5%
No response
0
Table A-10: Elementary: If your child is currently enrolled in an English program, in which French
Immersion programs was your child previously enrolled?
Secondary: If your child was enrolled in an English program, in which French Immersion
programs was your child previously enrolled?
Child was not enrolled in FI
Parents/Guardians of
Elementary Students
(n=164)
112
68.3%
Parents/Guardians of
Secondary Students
(n=187)
134
71.7%
Early French Immersion
32
19.5%
43
23.0%
Middle French Immersion
13
7.9%
5
2.7%
7
4.3%
5
2.7%
Late French Immersion
Table A-11:
Has your child continued to take subject-specific courses (e.g., math, science, geography,
etc.) in French, in secondary school?
Yes
Parents/Guardians of
Secondary Students
(n=337)
131
38.9%
105
31.2%
Don’t Know
1
0.3%
No response
100
29.7%
No
Quality Assurance
A5
FSL Survey Results
Table A-12: Is your child working towards a French Immersion certificate?
Parents/Guardians of
Secondary Students
(n=337)
99
29.4%
Yes
126
No
37.4%
Don’t Know
8
2.4%
No response
104
30.9%
What is your opinion about the amount of French instruction your child is receiving in his/her current
program/your child received in elementary school?
Table A-13a: Parents/Guardians of Elementary Students
Too little
All
(n=623)
103
16.5%
English
(n=105)
31
29.5%
Just the right amount
436
59
70.0%
56.2%
EFI
(n=199)
30
15.1%
150
MFI
(n=160)
16
10.0%
75.4%
119
74.4%
LFI
(159)
26
16.4%
108
67.9%
Too much
21
3.4%
0
0%
5
2.5%
12
7.5%
4
2.5%
No opinion
Child does not receive
French
No Response
45
7.2%
11
10.5%
10
5.0%
9
5.6%
15
9.4%
1
0.2%
1
1.0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
17
2.7%
3
2.9%
4
2.0%
4
2.5%
6
3.8%
Table A-13b: Parents/Guardians of Secondary Students
Too little
All
(n=337)
101
30.0%
English
(n=169)
57
33.7%
EFI
(n=114)
22
19.3%
MFI
(n=13)
5
38.5%
LFI
(n=36)
16
44.4%
Just the right amount
186
55.2%
77
45.6%
81
71.1%
8
61.5%
17
47.2%
Too much
10
3.0%
8
4.7%
1
0.9%
0
0%
1
2.8%
Don’t know
28
8.3%
19
11.2%
7
6.1%
0
0%
2
5.6%
No Response
12
3.6%
8
4.7%
3
2.6%
0
0%
0
0%
Quality Assurance
A6
FSL Survey Results
What level of French proficiency do you expect your child to have in the following areas when he/she
graduates from high school assuming continuation of his/her current program?
Reading
Table A-14a: Parents/Guardians of Elementary Students
understand simple texts
and grasp the main ideas
on a familiar topic
understand specific details
and differentiate main
from secondary ideas
understand complex
details and fine points of
meaning in unfamiliar
materials
No Response
All
(n=623)
English
(n=105)
EFI
(n=199)
MFI
(n=160)
LFI
(159)
65
10.4%
46
43.8%
4
2.0%
1
0.6%
14
8.8%
230
36.9%
39
37.1%
50
25.1%
57
35.6%
84
52.8%
318
51.0%
18
17.1%
142
71.4%
99
61.9%
59
37.1%
10
1.6%
2
1.9%
3
1.5%
3
1.9%
2
1.3%
Table A-14b: Parents/Guardians of Secondary Students
All
(n=337)
understand simple texts
and grasp the main ideas
on a familiar topic
understand specific details
and differentiate main
from secondary ideas
understand complex
details and fine points of
meaning in unfamiliar
materials
No Response
English
(n=169)
EFI
(n=114)
MFI
(n=13)
LFI
(n=36)
129
38.3%
103
60.9%
11
9.6%
2
15.4%
12
33.3%
101
30.0%
32
18.9%
47
41.2%
6
46.2%
16
44.4%
73
21.7%
10
5.9%
51
44.7%
4
30.8%
5
13.9%
34
10.1%
24
14.2%
5
4.4%
1
7.7%
3
8.3%
Writing
Table A-15a: Parents/Guardians of Elementary Students
All
(n=623)
write words, phrases and
simple statements or
questions on very familiar
topics
master grammar and
vocabulary to deal with
explicit information
write where ideas are
developed and presented
in a coherent manner
No Response
Quality Assurance
English
(n=105)
EFI
(n=199)
MFI
(n=160)
LFI
(159)
99
15.9%
56
53.3%
8
4.0%
6
3.8%
29
18.2%
236
37.9%
24
22.9%
64
32.2%
66
41.3%
82
51.6%
269
43.2%
21
20.0%
120
60.3%
81
50.6%
47
29.6%
19
3.0%
4
3.8%
7
3.5%
7
4.4%
1
0.6%
A7
FSL Survey Results
Table A-15b: Parents/Guardians of Secondary Students
All
(n=337)
write words, phrases and
simple statements or
questions on very familiar
topics
master grammar and
vocabulary to deal with
explicit information
write where ideas are
developed and presented
in a coherent manner
No Response
English
(n=169)
EFI
(n=114)
MFI
(n=13)
LFI
(n=36)
141
41.8%
102
60.4%
20
17.5%
3
23.1%
15
41.7%
59
17.5%
21
12.4%
25
21.9%
2
15.4%
11
30.6%
95
28.2%
14
8.3%
65
57.0%
8
61.5%
5
13.9%
42
12.5%
32
18.9%
4
3.5%
0
0%
5
13.9%
Oral
Table A-16a: Parents/Guardians of Elementary Students
participate in a short
conversation in French on
a familiar topic
converse in French on a
familiar topic
converse in French with a
francophone
No Response
All
(n=623)
English
(n=105)
EFI
(n=199)
MFI
(n=160)
LFI
(159)
62
10.0%
40
38.1%
3
1.5%
1
0.6%
18
11.3%
132
21.2%
38
36.2%
25
12.6%
28
17.5%
41
25.8%
413
66.3%
23
21.9%
167
83.9%
128
80.0%
95
59.7%
16
2.6%
4
3.8%
4
2.0%
3
1.9%
5
3.1%
Table A-16b: Parents/Guardians of Secondary Students
All
(n=337)
participate in a short
conversation in French on
a familiar topic
converse in French on a
familiar topic
converse in French with a
francophone
No Response
Quality Assurance
English
(n=169)
EFI
(n=114)
MFI
(n=13)
LFI
(n=36)
121
35.9%
95
56.2%
11
9.6%
3
23.1%
12
33.3%
63
18.7%
26
15.4%
22
19.3%
1
7.7%
13
36.1%
110
32.6%
18
10.7%
73
64.0%
8
61.5%
8
22.2%
43
12.8%
30
17.8%
8
7.0%
1
7.7%
3
8.3%
A8
FSL Survey Results
3. Common Questions
Table A-17: Which school organization is best for student learning?
Single Stream
(i.e., English or FI)
Dual Track
(i.e., English and FI)
Don’t Know
No response
Elementary
Principals/VPs
Elementary
Teachers
(n=104)
(n=1161)
Parents/
Guardians of
Elementary
Students
(n=623)
Parents/
Guardians of
Secondary
Students
(n=337)
25
24.0%
395
34.0%
128
20.5%
89
26.4%
64
61.5%
519
44.7%
310
49.8%
136
40.4%
10
9.6%
214
18.4%
166
26.6%
87
25.8%
5
4.8%
33
2.8%
19
3.0%
25
7.4%
All groups reported that “dual track” is the best organization for student learning.
Quality Assurance
A9
FSL Survey Results
Parents: How important were the following factors in helping you select your child’s program in elementary
school?
Staff:
How important are the following factors for students to be successful in a French Immersion
program?
Ability to adjust to challenging situations
Chart A-1
extremely important
somewhat important
not very important
not important at all
no response
don't know
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
don't know
no response
not important at
all
not very
important
somewhat
important
extremely
important
Secondary Parents
1%
5%
7%
9%
30%
48%
Elementary Parents
1%
4%
4%
7%
36%
49%
Principals/VPs
0%
12%
1%
2%
43%
42%
Teachers
1%
28%
1%
2%
29%
39%
Table A-18a: Parents/Guardians of Elementary Students
extremely important
English
(n=105)
59
56.2%
EFI
(n=199)
76
38.2%
MFI
(n=160)
83
51.9%
LFI
(159)
88
55.3%
somewhat important
26
24.8%
90
45.2%
56
35.0%
49
30.8%
not very important
8
7.6%
15
7.5%
9
5.6%
11
6.9%
not important at all
4
3.8%
10
5.0%
4
2.5%
5
3.1%
don’t know
1
1.0%
2
1.0%
1
0.6%
0
0%
No Response
7
6.7%
6
3.0%
7
4.4%
6
3.8%
Table A-18b: Parents/Guardians of Secondary Students
extremely important
English
(n=169)
83
49.1%
EFI
(n=114)
55
48.2%
MFI
(n=13)
7
53.8%
LFI
(n=36)
15
41.7%
somewhat important
43
25.4%
38
33.3%
4
30.8%
15
41.7%
not very important
15
8.9%
12
10.5%
1
7.7%
3
8.3%
not important at all
15
8.9%
4
3.5%
1
7.7%
2
5.6%
don’t know
2
1.2%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
No Response
11
6.5%
5
4.4%
0
0%
1
2.8%
Quality Assurance
A10
FSL Survey Results
First language skills (other than French)
Chart A-2
extremely important
somewhat important
not very important
not important at all
no response
don't know
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
don't know
no response
not important at
all
not very
important
somewhat
important
extremely
important
Secondary Parents
1%
4%
7%
12%
25%
52%
Elementary Parents
1%
6%
7%
10%
25%
51%
Principals/VPs
0%
12%
0%
3%
19%
66%
Teachers
0%
29%
1%
5%
13%
52%
Table A-19a: Parents/Guardians of Elementary Students
extremely important
English
(n=105)
75
71.4%
EFI
(n=199)
83
41.7%
MFI
(n=160)
78
48.8%
LFI
(159)
83
52.2%
somewhat important
12
11.4%
64
32.2%
41
25.6%
37
23.3%
not very important
7
6.7%
17
8.5%
16
10.0%
21
13.2%
not important at all
3
2.9%
21
10.6%
15
9.4%
8
5.0%
don’t know
1
1.0%
2
1.0%
1
0.6%
2
1.3%
No Response
7
6.7%
12
6.0%
9
5.6%
8
5.0%
Table A-19b: Parents/Guardians of Elementary Students
extremely important
English
(n=169)
106
62.7%
EFI
(n=114)
48
42.1%
MFI
(n=13)
4
30.8%
LFI
(n=36)
14
38.9%
somewhat important
32
18.9%
33
28.9%
5
38.5%
13
36.1%
not very important
14
8.3%
17
14.9%
4
30.8%
3
8.3%
not important at all
7
4.1%
13
11.4%
0
0%
5
13.9%
don’t know
2
1.2%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
No Response
8
4.7%
3
2.6%
0
0%
1
2.8%
Quality Assurance
A11
FSL Survey Results
Work Habits
Chart A-3
extremely important
somewhat important
not very important
not important at all
no response
don't know
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
not important at
not very important
all
100%
somewhat
important
extremely
important
14%
32%
42%
12%
34%
43%
2%
5%
36%
45%
1%
2%
27%
41%
don't know
no response
Secondary Parents
1%
5%
7%
Elementary Parents
1%
5%
6%
Principals/VPs
0%
12%
Teachers
1%
28%
Table A-20a: Parents/Guardians of Elementary Students
extremely important
English
(n=105)
52
49.5%
EFI
(n=199)
65
32.7%
MFI
(n=160)
65
40.6%
LFI
(159)
85
53.5%
somewhat important
27
25.7%
82
41.2%
57
35.6%
45
28.3%
not very important
9
8.6%
23
11.6%
25
15.6%
16
10.1%
not important at all
9
8.6%
19
9.5%
5
3.1%
5
3.1%
don’t know
1
1.0%
0
0%
1
0.6%
1
0.6%
No Response
7
6.7%
10
5.0%
7
4.4%
7
4.4%
Table A-20b: Parents/Guardians of Secondary Students
extremely important
English
(n=169)
75
44.4%
EFI
(n=114)
44
38.6%
MFI
(n=13)
6
46.2%
LFI
(n=36)
15
41.7%
somewhat important
48
28.4%
38
33.3%
4
30.8%
15
41.7%
not very important
22
13.0%
20
17.5%
3
23.1%
3
8.3%
not important at all
14
8.3%
7
6.1%
0
0%
2
5.6%
don’t know
1
0.6%
1
0.9%
0
0%
0
0%
No Response
9
5.3%
4
3.5%
0
0%
1
2.8%
Quality Assurance
A12
FSL Survey Results
Charts 4-6 are “ranked” the same overall and appear in no particular order.
Family support
Chart A-4
extremely important
somewhat important
not very important
not important at all
no response
don't know
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
don't know
no response
not important at
all
not very
important
somewhat
important
extremely
important
Secondary Parents
2%
6%
13%
13%
27%
40%
Elementary Parents
1%
6%
12%
13%
34%
35%
Principals/VPs
0%
11%
0%
1%
31%
57%
Teachers
0%
29%
0%
1%
16%
54%
Table A-21a: Parents/Guardians of Elementary Students
extremely important
English
(n=105)
43
41.0%
EFI
(n=199)
56
28.1%
MFI
(n=160)
51
31.9%
LFI
(159)
68
42.8%
somewhat important
28
26.7%
76
38.2%
60
37.5%
45
28.3%
not very important
11
10.5%
24
12.1%
22
13.8%
23
14.5%
not important at all
14
13.3%
30
15.1%
13
8.1%
15
9.4%
don’t know
2
1.9%
2
1.0%
4
2.5%
1
0.6%
No Response
7
6.7%
11
5.5%
10
6.3%
7
4.4%
Table A-21b: Parents/Guardians of Secondary Students
extremely important
English
(n=169)
75
44.4%
EFI
(n=114)
42
36.8%
MFI
(n=13)
4
30.8%
LFI
(n=36)
13
36.1%
somewhat important
36
21.3%
37
32.5%
6
46.2%
10
not very important
18
10.7%
14
12.3%
3
23.1%
7
19.4%
not important at all
22
13.0%
16
14.0%
0
0%
5
13.9%
don’t know
4
2.4%
2
1.8%
0
0%
0
0%
No Response
14
8.3%
3
2.6%
0
0%
1
2.8%
Quality Assurance
A13
27.8%
FSL Survey Results
Emotional development
Chart A-5
extremely important
somewhat important
not very important
not important at all
no response
don't know
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
don't know
no response
not important at
all
not very
important
somewhat
important
extremely
important
Secondary Parents
1%
5%
10%
12%
32%
41%
Elementary Parents
2%
4%
7%
11%
36%
40%
Principals/VPs
0%
11%
1%
7%
52%
29%
Teachers
1%
28%
1%
6%
38%
26%
Table A-22a: Parents/Guardians of Elementary Students
extremely important
English
(n=105)
59
56.2%
EFI
(n=199)
70
35.2%
MFI
(n=160)
58
36.3%
LFI
(159)
61
38.4%
somewhat important
25
23.8%
74
37.2%
63
39.4%
63
39.6%
not very important
6
5.7%
25
12.6%
19
11.9%
18
11.3%
not important at all
7
6.7%
19
9.5%
11
6.9%
7
4.4%
don’t know
1
1.0%
3
1.5%
2
1.3%
4
2.5%
No Response
7
6.7%
8
4.0%
7
4.4%
6
3.8%
Table A-22b: Parents/Guardians of Secondary Students
extremely important
English
(n=169)
75
44.4%
EFI
(n=114)
42
36.8%
MFI
(n=13)
4
30.8%
LFI
(n=36)
13
36.1%
somewhat important
42
24.9%
42
36.8%
8
61.5%
15
41.7%
not very important
20
11.8%
15
13.2%
1
7.7%
4
11.1%
not important at all
18
10.7%
11
9.6%
0
0%
3
8.3%
don’t know
4
2.4%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
No Response
10
5.9%
4
3.5%
0
0%
1
2.8%
Quality Assurance
A14
FSL Survey Results
Availability of the program in your local school
Chart A-6
extremely important
somewhat important
not very important
not important at all
no response
don't know
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
don't know
no response
not important at
all
not very
important
somewhat
important
extremely
important
Secondary Parents
1%
4%
10%
13%
29%
44%
Elementary Parents
1%
4%
9%
11%
30%
45%
Table A-23a: Parents/Guardians of Elementary Students
extremely important
English
(n=105)
40
38.1%
EFI
(n=199)
93
46.7%
MFI
(n=160)
57
35.6%
LFI
(159)
88
55.3%
somewhat important
28
26.7%
69
34.7%
54
33.8%
39
24.5%
not very important
11
10.5%
17
8.5%
24
15.0%
19
11.9%
not important at all
15
14.3%
13
6.5%
19
11.9%
8
5.0%
don’t know
4
3.8%
1
0.5%
1
0.6%
1
0.6%
No Response
7
6.7%
6
3.0%
5
3.1%
4
2.5%
Table A-23b: Parents/Guardians of Secondary Students
Parents/Guardians of
Secondary Students
extremely important
English
(n=169)
56
33.1%
EFI
(n=114)
63
55.3%
MFI
(n=13)
5
38.5%
LFI
(n=36)
22
61.1%
somewhat important
45
26.6%
34
29.8%
4
30.8%
11
30.6%
not very important
35
20.7%
7
6.1%
2
15.4%
1
2.8%
not important at all
21
12.4%
6
5.3%
2
15.4%
2
5.6%
don’t know
1
0.6%
1
0.9%
0
0%
0
0%
No Response
11
6.5%
3
2.6%
0
0%
0
0%
Quality Assurance
A15
FSL Survey Results
Charts 7-6 are “ranked” the same overall and appear in no particular order.
Interest in Learning French
Chart A-7
extremely important
somewhat important
not very important
not important at all
no response
don't know
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
don't know
no response
not important at
all
not very
important
somewhat
important
extremely
important
Secondary Parents
1%
5%
13%
21%
41%
20%
Elementary Parents
0%
4%
9%
16%
40%
31%
Principals/VPs
0%
12%
1%
0%
17%
70%
Teachers
1%
28%
0%
3%
15%
53%
Table A-24a: Parents/Guardians of Elementary Students
extremely important
English
(n=105)
23
21.9%
EFI
(n=199)
41
20.6%
MFI
(n=160)
52
32.5%
LFI
(159)
79
49.7%
somewhat important
47
44.8%
77
38.7%
75
46.9%
51
32.1%
not very important
17
16.2%
41
20.6%
20
12.5%
19
11.9%
not important at all
10
9.5%
32
16.1%
9
5.6%
3
1.9%
don’t know
1
1.0%
0
0%
0
0%
1
0.6%
No Response
7
6.7%
8
4.0%
4
2.5%
6
3.8%
Table A-24b: Parents/Guardians of Secondary Students
extremely important
English
(n=169)
32
18.9%
EFI
(n=114)
20
17.5%
MFI
(n=13)
4
30.8%
LFI
(n=36)
10
27.8%
somewhat important
66
39.1%
46
40.4%
5
38.5%
18
50.0%
not very important
38
22.5%
28
24.6%
3
23.1%
2
5.6%
not important at all
22
13.0%
17
14.9%
0
0%
5
13.9%
don’t know
1
0.6%
1
0.9%
0
0%
0
0%
No Response
10
5.9%
2
1.8%
1
7.7%
1
2.8%
Quality Assurance
A16
FSL Survey Results
Social Skills
Chart A-8
extremely important
somewhat important
not very important
not important at all
no response
don't know
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
don't know
no response
not important at
all
not very
important
somewhat
important
extremely
important
Secondary Parents
0%
6%
9%
12%
34%
40%
Elementary Parents
1%
5%
7%
11%
37%
39%
Principals/VPs
0%
11%
4%
8%
54%
23%
Teachers
1%
29%
2%
8%
42%
19%
Table A-25a: Parents/Guardians of Elementary Students
extremely important
English
(n=105)
59
56.2%
EFI
(n=199)
72
36.2%
MFI
(n=160)
57
35.6%
LFI
(159)
55
34.6%
somewhat important
25
23.8%
74
37.2%
64
40.0%
66
41.5%
not very important
6
5.7%
26
13.1%
20
12.5%
18
11.3%
not important at all
6
5.7%
19
9.5%
8
5.0%
8
5.0%
don’t know
1
1.0%
1
0.5%
2
1.3%
3
1.9%
No Response
8
7.6%
7
3.5%
9
5.6%
9
5.7%
Table A-25b: Parents/Guardians of Secondary Students
extremely important
English
(n=169)
74
43.8%
EFI
(n=114)
41
36.0%
MFI
(n=13)
6
46.2%
LFI
(n=36)
11
30.6%
somewhat important
46
27.2%
44
38.6%
5
38.5%
17
47.2%
not very important
19
11.2%
15
13.2%
1
7.7%
4
11.1%
not important at all
17
10.1%
10
8.8%
1
7.7%
2
5.6%
don’t know
1
0.6%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
No Response
12
7.1%
4
3.5%
0
0%
2
5.6%
Quality Assurance
A17
FSL Survey Results
Availability of Child Care
Chart A-9
extremely important
somewhat important
not very important
not important at all
no response
don't know
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
somewhat
important
extremely
important
17%
9%
7%
15%
10%
9%
not important at
not very important
all
don't know
no response
Secondary Parents
4%
7%
56%
Elementary Parents
3%
8%
56%
100%
Table A-26a: Parents/Guardians of Elementary Students
Parents/Guardians of
Elementary Students
extremely important
English
(n=105)
17
16.2%
EFI
(n=199)
19
9.5%
MFI
(n=160)
11
6.9%
somewhat important
10
9.5%
19
9.5%
16
10.0%
14
8.8%
not very important
14
13.3%
33
16.6%
26
16.3%
23
14.5%
not important at all
51
48.6%
115
57.8%
87
54.4%
94
59.1%
don’t know
3
2.9%
3
1.5%
8
5.0%
3
1.9%
No Response
10
9.5%
10
5.0%
12
7.5%
17
10.7%
LFI
(159)
8
5.0%
Table A-26b: Parents/Guardians of Secondary Students
Parents/Guardians of
Secondary Students
extremely important
English
(n=169)
13
7.7%
somewhat important
15
8.9%
10
8.8%
4
30.8%
3
8.3%
not very important
24
14.2%
23
20.2%
7
53.8%
4
11.1%
not important at all
98
58.0%
60
52.6%
0
0%
22
61.1%
don’t know
5
3.0%
8
7.0%
0
0%
2
5.6%
No Response
14
8.3%
7
6.1%
1
7.7%
1
2.8%
Quality Assurance
EFI
(n=114)
6
5.3%
A18
MFI
(n=13)
1
7.7%
LFI
(n=36)
4
11.1%
FSL Survey Results
Teacher recommendation
Chart A-10
extremely important
somewhat important
not very important
not important at all
no response
don't know
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
don't know
no response
not important at
all
not very
important
somewhat
important
extremely
important
Principals/VPs
0%
12%
2%
5%
39%
42%
Teachers
2%
29%
1%
5%
29%
34%
Quality Assurance
A19
FSL Survey Results
Use of French at home
Chart A-11
extremely important
somewhat important
not very important
not important at all
no response
don't know
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
don't know
no response
not important at
all
not very
important
somewhat
important
extremely
important
Secondary Parents
2%
5%
47%
18%
18%
9%
Elementary Parents
2%
5%
34%
31%
20%
8%
Principals/VPs
0%
12%
18%
44%
22%
4%
Teachers
0%
29%
16%
30%
22%
4%
Table A-27a: Parents/Guardians of Elementary Students
Parents/Guardians of
Elementary Students
extremely important
English
(n=105)
13
12.4%
EFI
(n=199)
19
9.5%
somewhat important
18
17.1%
45
22.6%
23
14.4%
37
23.3%
not very important
29
27.6%
53
26.6%
57
35.6%
56
35.2%
not important at all
31
29.5%
73
36.7%
60
37.5%
48
30.2%
don’t know
6
5.7%
1
0.5%
2
1.3%
3
1.9%
No Response
8
7.6%
8
4.0%
9
5.6%
6
3.8%
MFI
(n=160)
9
5.6%
LFI
(159)
9
5.7%
Table A-27b: Parents/Guardians of Secondary Students
Parents/Guardians of
Secondary Students
extremely important
English
(n=169)
22
13.0%
somewhat important
25
14.8%
27
not very important
32
18.9%
not important at all
EFI
(n=114)
8
7.0%
MFI
(n=13)
LFI
(n=36)
1
2.8%
0
0%
23.7%
4
30.8%
5
13.9%
19
16.7%
2
15.4%
7
19.4%
74
43.8%
57
50.0%
7
53.8%
19
52.8%
don’t know
6
3.6%
0
0%
0
0%
1
2.8%
No Response
10
5.9%
3
2.6%
0
0%
3
8.3%
Quality Assurance
A20
FSL Survey Results
French skills
Chart A-12
extremely important
somewhat important
not very important
not important at all
no response
don't know
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
don't know
no response
not important at
all
not very
important
somewhat
important
extremely
important
Secondary Parents
1%
5%
23%
19%
32%
20%
Elementary Parents
1%
4%
13%
18%
38%
26%
Principals/VPs
0%
14%
9%
20%
38%
19%
Teachers
1%
29%
5%
17%
29%
20%
Table A-28a: Parents/Guardians of Elementary Students
Parents/Guardians of
Elementary Students
extremely important
English
(n=105)
20
19.0%
EFI
(n=199)
52
26.1%
MFI
(n=160)
40
25.0%
LFI
(159)
48
30.2%
somewhat important
46
43.8%
58
29.1%
61
38.1%
74
46.5%
not very important
18
17.1%
40
20.1%
35
21.9%
19
11.9%
not important at all
11
10.5%
42
21.1%
15
9.4%
11
6.9%
don’t know
2
1.9%
2
1.0%
3
1.9%
1
0.6%
No Response
8
7.6%
5
2.5%
6
3.8%
6
3.8%
Table A-28b: Parents/Guardians of Secondary Students
Parents/Guardians of
Secondary Students
extremely important
English
(n=169)
30
17.8%
EFI
(n=114)
26
22.8%
MFI
(n=13)
5
38.5%
somewhat important
56
33.1%
32
28.1%
3
23.1%
16
44.4%
not very important
35
20.7%
18
15.8%
2
15.4%
7
19.4%
not important at all
33
19.5%
34
29.8%
3
23.1%
6
16.7%
don’t know
3
1.8%
1
0.9%
0
0%
0
0%
No Response
12
7.1%
3
2.6%
0
0%
1
2.8%
Quality Assurance
A21
LFI
(n=36)
6
16.7%
FSL Survey Results
Provision of Transportation
Chart A-13
extremely important
somewhat important
not very important
not important at all
no response
don't know
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
not important at
not very important
all
don't know
no response
Secondary Parents
2%
6%
30%
Elementary Parents
0%
7%
30%
100%
somewhat
important
extremely
important
21%
20%
21%
16%
23%
25%
Table A-29a: Parents/Guardians of Elementary Students
Parents/Guardians of
Elementary Students
extremely important
English
(n=105)
26
24.8%
EFI
(n=199)
36
18.1%
MFI
(n=160)
50
31.3%
LFI
(159)
43
27.0%
somewhat important
18
17.1%
46
23.1%
42
26.3%
35
22.0%
not very important
16
15.2%
38
19.1%
22
13.8%
23
14.5%
not important at all
33
31.4%
68
34.2%
36
22.5%
48
30.2%
don’t know
1
1.0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
No Response
11
10.5%
11
5.5%
10
6.3%
10
6.3%
Table A-29b: Parents/Guardians of Secondary Students
Parents/Guardians of
Secondary Students
extremely important
English
(n=169)
36
21.3%
EFI
(n=114)
29
25.4%
MFI
(n=13)
1
7.7%
somewhat important
28
16.6%
22
19.3%
5
38.5%
10
27.8%
not very important
34
20.1%
26
22.8%
4
30.8%
4
11.1%
not important at all
56
33.1%
30
26.3%
2
15.4%
13
36.1%
don’t know
4
2.4%
2
1.8%
0
0%
2
5.6%
No Response
11
6.5%
5
4.4%
1
7.7%
1
2.8%
Quality Assurance
A22
LFI
(n=36)
6
16.7%
FSL Survey Results
Section B: French Immersion
1. Principals/Vice-Principals and Teacher Surveys
Table A-30: Which French Immersion program provides students with the best opportunity to
develop their language skills in French by the end of grade 8?
Early French Immersion
Elementary
Principals/VPs
(n=104)
55
52.9%
Elementary
Teachers
(n=1161)
554
47.7%
No Response
49
47.1%
607
52.3%
Middle French Immersion
55
52.9%
395
34.0%
No Response
49
47.1%
766
66.0%
Late French Immersion
10
9.6%
107
No Response
94
90.4%
1054
Don’t know
6
5.8%
46
4.0%
No Response
98
94.2%
1115
96.0%
9.2%
90.8
Table A-31: Which French Immersion program provides students with the best opportunity to
develop their language skills in English by the end of grade 8?
Early French Immersion
Elementary
Principals/VPs
(n=104)
25
24.0%
Elementary
Teachers
(n=1161)
260
22.4%
No Response
79
76.0%
901
77.6%
Middle French Immersion
58
55.8%
398
34.3%
No Response
46
44.2%
763
65.7%
Late French Immersion
39
37.5%
313
27.0%
No Response
65
62.5%
848
73.0%
Don’t know
6
5.8%
127
10.9%
No Response
98
94.2%
1034
89.1%
Quality Assurance
A23
FSL Survey Results
2. Common Questions
What grade level is best for students to enter the Early French Immersion program (currently SK entry
point)?
Table A-32a
Elementary
Principals/VPs
Elementary
Teachers
SK
(n=104)
33
31.7%
(n=1161)
478
41.2%
Grade 1
12
11.5%
75
6.5%
Grade 2
11
10.6%
57
4.9%
Grade 3
12
11.5%
95
8.2%
None
20
19.2%
103
8.9%
Don’t Know
0
0%
23
2.0%
No response
16
15.4%
330
28.4%
Table A-32b: Parents/Guardians of Elementary Students
SK
All
(n=518)
294
56.8%
Grade 1
88
Grade 2
15
Grade 3
15
None
12
Don’t Know
No Response
EFI
(n=199)
161 80.9%
17.0%
MFI
(n=160)
62 38.8%
LFI
(n=159)
71 44.7%
41
27
20
10.1%
25.6%
17.0%
2.9%
3
1.5%
5
3.1%
7
4.4%
2.9%
0
0%
11
6.9%
4
2.5%
2.3%
2
1.0%
6
3.8%
4
2.5%
41
7.9%
7
3.5%
14
8.8%
20
12.6%
53
10.2%
6
3.0%
21
13.1%
26
16.4%
Table A-32c: Parents/Guardians of Secondary Students
SK
All
(n=163)
109
66.9%
EFI
(n=114)
90
78.9%
MFI
(n=13)
4
30.8%
LFI
(n=36)
15
41.7%
Grade 1
13
8.0%
9
7.9%
1
7.7%
3
8.3%
Grade 2
6
3.7%
3
2.6%
1
7.7%
2
5.6%
Grade 3
7
4.3%
2
1.8%
1
7.7%
4
11.1%
None
4
2.5%
0
0%
1
7.7%
3
8.3%
Don’t Know
10
6.1%
2
1.8%
3
23.1%
5
13.9%
No Response
14
8.6%
8
7.0%
2
15.4%
4
11.1%
Quality Assurance
A24
FSL Survey Results
What grade level is best for students to enter the Middle French Immersion program (currently Grade 4
entry point)?
Table A-33a
Elementary
Principals/VPs
(n=104)
8
7.7%
Grade 3
Elementary
Teachers
(n=1161)
150
12.9%
Grade 4
70
67.3%
508
43.8%
Grade 5
4
3.8%
60
5.2%
Grade 6
2
1.9%
17
1.5%
Grade 7
0
0%
10
0.9%
Grade 8
0
0%
0
0%
None
4
3.8%
28
2.4%
Don’t Know
5
4.8%
56
4.8%
No response
11
10.6%
332
28.6%
Table A-33b: Parents/Guardians of Elementary Students
Grade 3
All
(n=518)
192
37.1%
EFI
(n=199)
86
43.2%
MFI
(n=160)
44
27.5%
LFI
(n=159)
62
39.0%
Grade 4
174
33.6%
38
19.1%
97
60.6%
39
24.5%
Grade 5
12
2.3%
2
1.0%
5
3.1%
5
3.1%
Grade 6
4
0.8%
0
0%
0
0%
4
2.5%
Grade 7
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
Grade 8
1
0.2%
1
0.5%
0
0%
0
0%
None
10
1.9%
9
4.5%
0
0%
1
0.6%
Don’t Know
61
11.8%
34
17.1%
4
2.5%
23
14.5%
No response
64
12.4%
29
14.6%
10
6.3%
25
15.7%
Table A-33c: Parents/Guardians of Elementary Students
Grade 3
All
(n=163)
61
37.4%
EFI
(n=114)
45
39.5%
MFI
(n=13)
3
23.1%
LFI
(n=36)
13
36.1%
Grade 4
44
27.0%
25
21.9%
7
53.8%
12
33.3%
Grade 5
3
1.8%
2
1.8%
0
0%
1
2.8%
Grade 6
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
Grade 7
1
0.6%
0
0%
0
0%
1
2.8%
Grade 8
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
None
2
1.2%
1
0.9%
0
0%
1
2.8%
Don’t Know
28
17.2%
23
20.2%
0
0%
5
13.9%
No response
24
14.7%
18
15.8%
3
23.1%
3
8.3%
Quality Assurance
A25
FSL Survey Results
What grade level is best for students to enter the Late French Immersion program (currently Grade 7
entry point)?
Table A-34a
Grade 5
Elementary
Principals/VPs
(n=104)
1
1.0%
Elementary
Teachers
(n=1161)
78
6.7%
Grade 6
22
21.2%
225
19.4%
Grade 7
34
32.7%
345
29.7%
Grade 8
0
0%
13
1.1%
30
28.8%
93
8.0%
Don’t Know
5
4.8%
77
6.6%
No response
12
11.5%
330
28.4%
None
Table A-34b: Parents/Guardians of Elementary Students
Grade 5
All
(n=518)
137
26.4%
EFI
(n=199)
66
33.2%
MFI
(n=160)
28
17.5%
LFI
(n=159)
43
27.0%
Grade 6
112
21.6%
28
14.1%
40
25.0%
44
27.7%
Grade 7
111
21.4%
25
12.6%
40
25.0%
46
28.9%
4
0.8%
3
1.5%
0
0%
1
0.6%
None
23
4.4%
13
6.5%
9
5.6%
1
0.6%
Don’t Know
71
13.7%
36
18.1%
22
13.8%
13
8.2%
No response
60
11.6%
28
14.1%
21
13.1%
11
6.9%
Grade 8
Table A-34c: Parents/Guardians of Secondary Students
Grade 5
All
(n=163)
50
30.7%
EFI
(n=114)
37
32.5%
MFI
(n=13)
2
15.4%
LFI
(n=36)
11
30.6%
Grade 6
21
12.9%
13
11.4%
2
15.4%
6
16.7%
Grade 7
28
17.2%
20
17.5%
1
7.7%
7
19.4%
1
0.6%
1
0.9%
0
0%
0
0%
None
12
7.4%
5
4.4%
2
15.4%
5
13.9%
Don’t Know
31
19.0%
23
20.2%
4
30.8%
4
11.1%
No response
20
12.3%
15
13.2%
2
15.4%
3
8.3%
Grade 8
Quality Assurance
A26
FSL Survey Results
Which language of instruction is best for the Arts in the Primary, Junior and Intermediate divisions for the
EFI entry point?
Charts A-14 to A-16
Primary Division (grades 1-3) by Group
7%
don't know
3%
2%
10%
68%
68%
French
56%
no response
0%
Secondary Parents
Elementary Parents
Principals/Vice-Principals
10%
13%
13%
8%
7%
9%
16%
English
75%
Teachers
34%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Percentages
Junior Division (grades 4-6) by Group
don't know
9%
10%
3%
2%
63%
66%
French
52%
70%
Secondary Parents
Elementary Parents
Principals/Vice-Principals
5%
10%
9%
English
Teachers
6%
16%
17%
no response
0%
22%
20%
40%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Percentages
Intermediate Division (grades 7-8) by Group
9%
don't know
3%
4%
12%
62%
61%
58%
French
47%
9%
9%
English
9%
0%
Elementary Parents
Principals/Vice-Principals
Teachers
14%
20%
18%
no response
Secondary Parents
20%
25%
40%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Percentages
Quality Assurance
A27
FSL Survey Results
Which language is best for the Arts in the Junior and Intermediate divisions for the MFI entry point?
Charts A-17 to A-18
Junior Division (grades 4-6) by Group
don't know
17%
14%
6%
4%
66%
65%
French
Secondary Parents
70%
54%
Elementary Parents
Principals/Vice-Principals
7%
9%
5%
6%
10%
12%
English
no response
Teachers
19%
0%
36%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Percentages
Intermediate Division (grades7-8) by Group
don't know
16%
15%
6%
5%
56%
58%
57%
French
47%
6%
6%
English
7%
Secondary Parents
Elementary Parents
Principals/Vice-Principals
Teachers
11%
22%
21%
no response
0%
20%
27%
41%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Percentages
Which language of instruction is best for the Arts in the Intermediate division for the LFI entry point?
Chart A-19
Intermediate Division (grades 7-8) by Group
don't know
18%
16%
4%
4%
French
54%
7%
English
6%
0%
Secondary Parents
Elementary Parents
Principals/Vice-Principals
10%
11%
10%
10%
no response
64%
64%
66%
Teachers
19%
20%
36%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Percentages
Quality Assurance
A28
FSL Survey Results
Which language of instruction is best for the Mathematics in the Primary, Junior and Intermediate
divisions for the EFI entry point?
Charts A-20 to A-22
Primary Division (grades 1-3) by Group
7%
8%
don't know
1%
1%
41%
41%
39%
37%
French
Secondary Parents
Elementary Parents
Principals/Vice-Principals
45%
41%
42%
English
27%
7%
no response
10%
0%
17%
Teachers
35%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Percentages
Junior Division (grades 4-6) by Group
don't know
1%
4%
8%
8%
35%
37%
French
25%
Secondary Parents
Elementary Parents
32%
Principals/Vice-Principals
39%
39%
English
Teachers
52%
28%
18%
16%
19%
no response
0%
39%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Percentages
Intermediate Division (grades 7-8) by Group
don't know
3%
4%
French
10%
11%
17%
28%
28%
Secondary Parents
Elementary Parents
27%
Principals/Vice-Principals
43%
43%
English
Teachers
58%
30%
19%
18%
22%
no response
39%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Percentages
Quality Assurance
A29
FSL Survey Results
Which language is best for Mathematics in the Junior and Intermediate divisions for the MFI entry point?
Charts A-23 to A-24
Junior Division (grades 4-6) by Group
don't know
6%
4%
16%
13%
28%
French
Secondary Parents
34%
26%
27%
Elementary Parents
Principals/Vice-Principals
45%
41%
English
Teachers
49%
33%
12%
12%
no response
0%
19%
36%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Percentages
Intermediate Division (grades 7-8) by Group
don't know
16%
16%
5%
4%
French
18%
26%
26%
Secondary Parents
Elementary Parents
23%
Principals/Vice-Principals
37%
38%
English
32%
21%
20%
24%
no response
0%
Teachers
53%
41%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Percentages
Which language of instruction is best for Mathematics in the Intermediate division for the LFI entry
point?
Charts A-25
Intermediate Division (grades 7-8) by Group
don't know
18%
16%
4%
5%
25%
French
20%
23%
Secondary Parents
30%
Elementary Parents
Principals/Vice-Principals
47%
44%
English
Teachers
58%
36%
10%
10%
no response
18%
0%
20%
36%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Percentages
Quality Assurance
A30
FSL Survey Results
Which language of instruction is best for Physical and Health Education in the Primary, Junior and
Intermediate divisions for the EFI entry point?
Charts A-26 to A-28
Primary Division (grades 1-3) by Group
9%
9%
don't know
2%
1%
69%
70%
67%
French
53%
no response
0%
Elementary Parents
Principals/Vice-Principals
12%
10%
15%
11%
9%
11%
15%
English
Secondary Parents
Teachers
35%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Percentages
Junior Division (grades 4-6) by Group
don't know
4%
2%
10%
10%
60%
French
49%
Secondary Parents
65%
64%
Elementary Parents
Principals/Vice-Principals
10%
8%
11%
9%
English
Teachers
20%
17%
21%
no response
0%
20%
40%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Percentages
Intermediate Division (grades 7-8) by Group
don't know
5%
4%
10%
11%
57%
French
44%
10%
10%
English
11%
0%
Secondary Parents
61%
Elementary Parents
Principals/Vice-Principals
Teachers
18%
18%
no response
53%
20%
23%
24%
40%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Percentages
Quality Assurance
A31
FSL Survey Results
Which language of instruction is best for Physical and Health Education in the Junior and Intermediate
divisions for the MFI entry point?
Charts A-29 to A-30
Junior Division (grades 4-6) by Group
17%
14%
don't know
4%
7%
59%
French
66%
50%
Secondary Parents
70%
Elementary Parents
Principals/Vice-Principals
12%
English
4%
8%
Teachers
9%
12%
13%
no response
19%
0%
20%
36%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Percentages
Intermediate Division (grades 7-8) by Group
don't know
17%
15%
6%
5%
50%
French
43%
6%
English
Secondary Parents
58%
55%
Elementary Parents
Principals/Vice-Principals
9%
Teachers
12%
10%
24%
21%
27%
no response
0%
20%
42%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Percentages
Which language of instruction is best for Physical and Health Education in the Intermediate division for
the LFI entry point?
Chart A-31
Intermediate Division (grades 7-8) by Group
don't know
17%
16%
3%
5%
60%
French
50%
8%
English
0%
Elementary Parents
Principals/Vice-Principals
12%
14%
9%
11%
11%
no response
Secondary Parents
65%
64%
Teachers
19%
20%
36%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Percentages
Quality Assurance
A32
FSL Survey Results
Which language of instruction is best for Science and Technology in the Primary, Junior and Intermediate
divisions for the EFI entry point?
Charts A-32 to A-34
Primary Division (grades 1-3) by Group
don't know
9%
10%
1%
1%
47%
50%
52%
45%
French
29%
29%
English
19%
9%
11%
no response
0%
18%
Secondary Parents
Elementary Parents
Principals/Vice-Principals
36%
Teachers
35%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Percentages
Junior Division (grades 4-6) by Group
don't know
4%
2%
9%
8%
43%
47%
45%
42%
French
English
17%
18%
18%
21%
no response
0%
Secondary Parents
Elementary Parents
Principals/Vice-Principals
29%
27%
30%
Teachers
39%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Percentages
Intermediate Division (grades 7-8) by Group
don't know
5%
5%
10%
11%
35%
38%
32%
34%
36%
33%
38%
French
English
21%
19%
18%
no response
Secondary Parents
Elementary Parents
Principals/Vice-Principals
Teachers
25%
40%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Percentages
Quality Assurance
A33
FSL Survey Results
Which language of instruction is best for Science and Technology in the Junior and Intermediate divisions
for the MFI entry point?
Charts A-35 to A-36
Junior Division (grades 4-6) by Group
18%
15%
don't know
7%
5%
31%
44%
French
39%
39%
Secondary Parents
48%
Elementary Parents
Principals/Vice-Principals
28%
25%
English
Teachers
21%
12%
13%
no response
0%
20%
36%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Percentages
Intermediate Division (grades 7-8) by Group
don't know
18%
15%
7%
6%
29%
French
Secondary Parents
37%
32%
33%
32%
27%
English
20%
21%
21%
no response
Elementary Parents
Principals/Vice-Principals
Teachers
35%
27%
41%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Percentages
Which language of instruction is best for Science and Technology in the Intermediate division for the LFI
entry point?
Chart A-37
Intermediate Division (grades 7-8) by Group
don't know
17%
16%
6%
5%
29%
French
English
24%
11%
10%
no response
Secondary Parents
39%
37%
35%
42%
35%
39%
Elementary Parents
Principals/Vice-Principals
Teachers
19%
36%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Percentages
Quality Assurance
A34
FSL Survey Results
Which language of instruction is best for Social Science (History/Geography) in the Primary, Junior and
Intermediate divisions for the EFI entry point?
Charts A-38 to A-40
Primary Division (grades 1-3) by Group
don't know
2%
2%
9%
10%
69%
65%
66%
French
50%
no response
0%
Elementary Parents
Principals/Vice-Principals
12%
13%
15%
13%
10%
12%
16%
English
Secondary Parents
Teachers
35%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Percentages
Junior Division (grades 4-6) by Group
don't know
3%
2%
10%
9%
65%
64%
French
51%
7%
English
6%
7%
Secondary Parents
69%
Elementary Parents
Principals/Vice-Principals
10%
Teachers
18%
17%
no response
0%
22%
40%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Percentages
Intermediate Division (grades 7-8) by Group
7%
don't know
11%
10%
7%
60%
59%
French
47%
8%
English
6%
7%
Secondary Parents
Elementary Parents
Principals/Vice-Principals
11%
Teachers
21%
18%
no response
64%
26%
40%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Percentages
Quality Assurance
A35
FSL Survey Results
Which language of instruction is best for Social Science (History/Geography) in the Junior and
Intermediate divisions for the MFI entry point?
Charts A-41 to A-42
Junior Division (grades 4-6) by Group
14%
don't know
18%
7%
5%
59%
French
49%
Secondary Parents
64%
66%
Elementary Parents
Principals/Vice-Principals
12%
9%
7%
9%
English
Teachers
12%
13%
no response
0%
20%
36%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Percentages
Intermediate Division (grades 7-8) by Group
15%
14%
14%
don't know
8%
French
44%
English
2%
53%
55%
57%
Secondary Parents
Elementary Parents
Principals/Vice-Principals
9%
9%
Teachers
6%
23%
22%
no response
27%
0%
20%
42%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Percentages
Which language of instruction is best for Social Science (History/Geography) in the Intermediate division
for the LFI entry point?
Chart A-43
Intermediate Division (grades 7-8) by Group
18%
17%
don't know
4%
6%
62%
62%
French
Secondary Parents
72%
Elementary Parents
50%
Principals/Vice-Principals
9%
10%
English
5%
Teachers
8%
11%
11%
no response
19%
0%
20%
36%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Percentages
Quality Assurance
A36
FSL Survey Results
Rate the following French Immersion Entry points (1 = most preferred and 3 = least preferred)
Table A-35a
Early
French
Immersion
Middle
French
Immersion
Late
French
Immersion
Most preferred
Elementary
Principals/VPs
(n=104)
28
26.9%
Elementary
Teachers
(n=1161)
440
37.9%
Least preferred
38
36.5%
231
19.9%
No response
18
17.3%
379
32.6%
Most preferred
58
55.8%
315
27.1%
Least preferred
14
13.5%
142
12.2%
No response
14
13.5%
390
33.6%
Most preferred
7
6.7%
88
7.6%
Least preferred
51
49.0%
464
40.0%
No response
16
15.4%
394
33.9%
2
1.9%
26
2.2%
No preference
Table A-35b: Parents/Guardians of Elementary Students
All
EFI
(n=518)
(n=199)
Early
Most preferred
280
54.1% 177
88.9%
French
Least preferred
91
17.6%
1
5.0%
Immersion
No response
64
12.4%
11
5.5%
Middle
Most preferred
171
33.0%
20
10.1%
French
Least preferred
27
5.2%
19
9.5%
Immersion
No response
84
16.2%
30
15.1%
Late
Most preferred
64
12.4%
5
2.5%
French
Least preferred
294
56.8% 150
75.4%
Immersion
No response
84
16.2%
30
15.1%
No
0
0%
0
0%
preference
Table A-35c: Parents/Guardians of Secondary Students
All
EFI
(n=163)
(n=114)
Early
Most preferred
105
64.4%
91
79.8%
French
Least preferred
17
10.4%
4
3.5%
Immersion
No response
18
11.0%
9
7.9%
Middle
Most preferred
39
23.9%
17
14.9%
French
Least preferred
16
9.8%
10
8.8%
Immersion
No response
27
16.6%
17
14.9%
Late
Most preferred
10
6.1%
2
1.8%
French
Least preferred
103
63.2%
80
70.2%
Immersion
No response
28
17.2%
18
15.8%
No
12
7.4%
4
3.5%
preference
Quality Assurance
A37
MFI
(n=160)
51 31.9%
LFI
(159)
52 32.7%
34
21.3%
56
35.2%
21
13.1%
32
20.1%
104
65.0%
47
29.6%
0
0%
8
5.0%
16
10%
38
23.9%
11
6.9%
48
30.2%
96
60.0%
48
30.2%
23
14.4%
31
19.5%
0
0%
0
0%
MFI
(n=13)
1
7.7%
LFI
(36)
13
36.1%
2
15.4%
11
30.6%
2
15.4%
7
19.4%
10
76.9%
12
33.3%
1
7.7%
5
13.9%
1
7.7%
9
25.0%
0
0%
8
22.2%
10
76.9%
13
36.1%
2
15.4%
8
22.2%
1
7.7%
7
19.4%
FSL Survey Results
Indicate the availability of the following supports to students in a French Immersion program at your
school:
Charts A-44a to A-44e
Parent/Volunteer Support
1%
4%
don't know
15%
not available
9%
22%
very limited availability
PVPS
14%
Teachers
22%
20%
somewhat available
14%
16%
readily available
26%
no response
37%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Percentages
Peer Mentoring
2%
don't know
7%
18%
not available
13%
very limited availability
13%
20%
PVPS
Teachers
20%
19%
somewhat available
13%
11%
readily available
27%
no response
37%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Percentages
Special Education Learning Centre Teacher
3%
5%
don't know
48%
not available
32%
17%
13%
very limited availability
somewhat available
readily available
PVPS
Teachers
5%
9%
0%
4%
27%
no response
37%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Percentages
Quality Assurance
A38
FSL Survey Results
Learning Support Teacher
2%
4%
don't know
35%
not available
25%
18%
17%
very limited availability
PVPS
Teachers
11%
11%
somewhat available
7%
6%
readily available
27%
no response
37%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Percentages
Education Assistant
3%
don't know
7%
52%
not available
13%
very limited availability
13%
13%
somewhat available
readily available
PVPS
Teachers
5%
19%
0%
11%
27%
no response
37%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Percentages
Quality Assurance
A39
FSL Survey Results
Section C: Core French
1. Principals/Vice-Principals and Teacher Surveys
Indicate the availability of the following supports to students in a Core French program at your school:
Charts A-45a to A-45e
Parent/Volunteer Support
don't know
0%
5%
34%
not available
21%
17%
very limited availability
somewhat available
11%
PVPS
11%
Teacher
5%
3%
1%
readily available
35%
no response
57%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Percentages
Peer Mentoring
don't know
0%
6%
26%
not available
18%
24%
very limited availability
PVPS
11%
Teacher
8%
6%
somewhat available
7%
readily available
2%
36%
no response
57%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Percentages
Quality Assurance
A40
FSL Survey Results
Special Education Learning Centre Teacher
don't know
0%
5%
47%
not available
28%
12%
very limited availability
5%
somewhat available
5%
3%
PVPS
Teacher
1%
2%
readily available
35%
no response
57%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Percentages
Learning Support Teacher
don't know
0%
4%
42%
not available
27%
16%
very limited availability
6%
somewhat available
6%
3%
PVPS
Teacher
1%
3%
readily available
35%
no response
57%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Percentages
Education Assistant
don't know
0%
4%
29%
25%
not available
24%
very limited availability
PVPS
8%
Teacher
11%
somewhat available
5%
1%
1%
readily available
35%
no response
57%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Percentages
Quality Assurance
A41
FSL Survey Results
2. Common Questions
Table A-36: In your opinion, what grade level is best for students to enter a core French program
(currently JK entry point)?
Elementary
Principals/VPs
JK
(n=104)
47
45.2%
Elementary
Teachers
(n=1161)
357
30.7%
Parents/
Guardians of
Elementary
Students
(n=105)
59
56.2%
Parents/
Guardians of
Secondary
Students
(n=169)
98
58.0%
SK
6
5.8%
63
5.4%
8
7.6%
12
7.1%
Grade 1
4
3.8%
38
3.3%
11
10.5%
20
11.8%
Grade 2
1
1.0%
9
0.8%
3
2.9%
1
0.6%
Grade 3
5
4.8%
21
1.8%
2
1.9%
2
1.2%
Grade 4
7
6.7%
34
2.9%
3
2.9%
11
6.5%
Don’t Know
1
1.0%
6
0.5%
9
8.6%
9
5.3%
No response
33
31.7%
633
54.5%
10
9.5%
16
9.5%
Table A-37: In your opinion, should Core French students receive more instruction time in French?
Elementary
Principals/VPs
Yes
(n=104)
14
13.5%
(n=1161)
193
16.6%
Parents/
Guardians of
Elementary
Students
(n=105)
43
41.0%
No
46
268
23.1%
36
34.3%
54
32.0%
44.2%
Elementary
Teachers
Parents/
Guardians of
Secondary
Students
(n=169)
73
43.2%
Don’t Know
5
4.8%
30
2.6%
16
15.2%
22
13.0%
No response
39
37.5%
670
57.7%
10
9.5%
20
11.8%
Table A-38: In your opinion, should Core French students receive longer instructional blocks in
French?
Elementary
Principals/VPs
Yes
(n=104)
19
18.3%
(n=1161)
175
15.1%
Parents/
Guardians of
Elementary
Students
(n=105)
37
35.2%
No
41
39.4%
284
24.5%
32
30.5%
56
33.1%
Don’t Know
6
5.8%
34
2.9%
19
18.1%
23
13.6%
No response
38
36.5%
668
57.5%
17
16.2%
22
13.0%
Quality Assurance
Elementary
Teachers
A42
Parents/
Guardians of
Secondary
Students
(n=169)
68
40.2%
FSL Survey Results
Appendix B
FSL Program Offerings in Other Districts
FSL Program Offerings in Other Districts
FSL program availability in Ontario school districts:
Information on French Immersion programs in elementary schools in Ontario was gathered through
school board websites, follow-up phone calls, and by contact with the director of the Canadian
Association of Second Language Teachers.
The following information was obtained for 57 of 65 English language school districts in Ontario1.
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Fifty school districts offer French Immersion. Of the 50, 45 have a single entry point and five
have two entry points.
The Ottawa-Carleton District School Board is the only board to offer three entry points.
Forty-two districts offer Early French Immersion, ten offer Middle French Immersion (grade 4 or
5 entry) and three offer Late French Immersion (grade 6, 7 or 8 entry).
Of the five districts that offer more than one entry point, two have Early French Immersion and
Middle French Immersion, two have Early French Immersion and Late French Immersion and
one has Late and Middle French Immersion.
Information on FSL programming from co-terminus/large urban school districts:
The following table summarizes information pertaining to FSL program offerings in selected Ontario
school boards (i.e., entry points, time allocation and subjects taught in French). Criteria for selection
included similarity to the OCDSB with respect to geographic location (i.e., Eastern Ontario) and size (i.e.,
larger, urban boards). FSL program offerings for the OCDSB are also included for references purposes.
1
From Report No. 06-131 to the Education Committee, Revision to Report No. 06-090, Re: Revised French
Immersion Review, May 18, 2006.
Quality Assurance
B1
FSL Programs in Other Districts
Selected School
Boards: Eastern
Ontario
Program
Offerings
Entry Points
Time Allocation
Subjects taught in
French
Other Notes
Ottawa-Carleton
District School Board
• Core*
• FI (3
• Core – JK/SK or
• Core – JK/SK (100
min/wk) Gr. 1-8 (200
min/wk)
• EFI – 100% SK/Gr. 1;
80% Gr. 2; 50% Gr. 6-8
• MFI – 80% Gr. 4-6; 70%
Gr. 7/8
• LFI – 70-75%
• Extended - 25% of time
(75 minutes/day)
• MFI – Gr. 4-6, 50% of
time (150 minutes/day); Gr.
7-8, 5 of 8 periods (190
minutes/day).
• Core – 1 period (40
min/day)
• 50% in both extended and
immersion programs.
• EFI - under review
• MFI/LFI – Gr. 4-6
• Congregated gifted FI offered at
Gr. 1
• EFI – SK
• MFI – Gr. 4
• LFI – Gr. 7
elementary
entry points +
gifted)
• Extended
(secondary)
Ottawa-Carleton
Catholic School
Board
• Core*
• Extended
• FI
• Extended – Gr. 1-6
• MFI – Gr. 4-8
• JK/SK – 50/50
English/French
• Core – Gr. 7/8
Upper-Canada
District School Board
• Core*
• Extended
• FI
Catholic District
School Board of
Eastern Ontario
• Core*
• Extended
• FI
Renfrew County
District School Board
• Core*
• Extended
• FI
• Immersion – SK
or Grade 1
• Extended – Gr. 5
or 7
• Core – not
specified
• Extended Gr. 1
• EFI – Gr. 1
• MFI – Gr. 5
all subjects except
English; Gr. 7/8
French; Language
Arts; Mathematics;
History; Geography;
Health and Phys Ed.
• 50/50 MFI program
English/French
(specific subjects not
available)
• Language Arts;
Health & Phys. Ed’
The Arts (except
music); Social Studies
(1-6) History &
Geography (7-8)
• Extended -
• FI - 50/50,
75 minutes/day
• FI - 150 minutes/day
English/French
(specific subjects not
available)
• 50/50 MFI program
(specific subjects not
available)
• MFI Gr. 5-8
• Extended Grades
• Core - 30 min/day
• 50/50 MFI program in 8
5-8 (with split grades
in some cases)
• Core - Gr. 1-8
schools
• Not specified for Extended
program
designated elementary and secondary sites.
• 10 credit FI certificate and 7 credit
Extended certificate available at the
secondary level.
• Program offerings by school available
from planning dept.
• Since September 2005, all FI programs
are located in dual-track schools with
transportation provided.
• 10 credit immersion certificate
implemented system-wide in 2001.
• FI/Extended Centres created pending
sufficient registration
• Transportation available to immersion
centres
• FI/Extended certification available at
secondary level.
• Immersion and Extended certification is
available at the secondary level.
• Secondary students receive a French
Achievement Certificate at a gold level (7
credits); a silver level (6 credits); core (4
credits). Some restrictions apply.
FI/Extended programs are created in areas
where sufficient enrolment can be
sustained.
* Core French is typically offered at least 40 min/day in Grades 4-8, and as a single French credit from Grades 9-12.
Quality Assurance
B2
FSL Programs in Other Districts
Selected Large
Urban School
Boards
Program
Offerings
Entry Points
Time Allocation
Subjects taught in
French
Other Notes
Ottawa-Carleton
District School Board
• Core*
• FI (3
• Core – JK/SK or
• Core – JK/SK (100
min/wk) Gr. 1-8 (200
min/wk)
• EFI – 100% SK/Gr. 1;
80% Gr. 2; 50% Gr. 6-8
• MFI – 80% Gr. 4-6; 70%
Gr. 7/8
• LFI – 70-75%
• EFI – 90% Gr. 1; 50% Gr.
2-8.
• Extended – 50%
• Core – 40 min/day
• EFI - under review
• MFI/LFI – Gr. 4-6
• Congregated gifted FI offered at
Gr. 1
• EFI – SK
• MFI – Gr. 4
• LFI – Gr. 7
elementary
entry points +
gifted)
• Extended
(secondary)
Peel District School
Board
• Core*
• Extended
• FI
• EFI – Gr. 1
• Core – Gr. 4-8
• Extended – Gr. 7
Toronto District
School Board
• Core*
• Extended
• FI
• EFI – SK
• MFI – Gr. 4
• Extended – Gr. 4
or Gr. 7
• Core – Gr.4-8
Thames Valley
District School Board
• Core*
• Extended
• FI
• EFI – SK or Gr. 1
• Core – Gr.4-8
• Extended – Gr. 7
all subjects except
English; Gr. 7/8
French; Language
Arts; Mathematics;
History; Geography;
Health and Phys Ed.
• EFI program(specific subjects not
available)
• Extended Language arts, social
studies and science in
French.
• EFI - 100% to end of Gr.
• EFI –English
3; approx. 80% Gr. 4/5; 50%
Gr. 6-8.
• MFI –100% Gr. 4/5; Gr. 6
approx 80%.
• Extended - 50% Gr. 4-8;
40% Gr. 7.
introduced in Gr. 4 (1
hr/day).
• MFI - Gr.6 English
(60 minutes); 50% Gr.
7/8.
• Extended Gr. 4-8
French Language
Arts; Social Studies;
and Arts
• specific subjects not
available
• EFI - 70%
• Not specified for Extended
program
designated elementary and secondary sites.
• 10 credit FI certificate and 7 credit
Extended certificate available at the
secondary level.
• Program offerings by school available
from planning dept.
• 19 elementary schools offer EFI; 3
elementary schools offer extended; 5
secondary schools offer FI; 3 secondary
schools offer extended.
• 10 credit FI certificate and 7 credit
Extended certificate available at the
secondary level.
• 3 secondary certificates available; FI
Honours, FI regular and Extended.
• 42 elementary schools offer EFI; 4
school offer MFI; 23 schools offer EFI
continuation Gr. 6-8; 21 schools offer
Extended Gr. 4-8; 16 schools offer
Extended Gr. 7; 10 secondary schools
offer FI; 11 offer Extended.
• FI offered at 10 elementary schools and
3 high schools; Extended French offered at
3 elementary schools and 3 secondary
schools.
• 10 credit FI certificate and 7 credit
Extended certificate available at the
secondary level.
* Core French is typically offered at least 40 min/day in Grades 4-8, and as a single French credit from Grades 9-12.
Quality Assurance
B3
FSL Programs in Other Districts
Appendix C
Information/Data Provided by the Planning Division
Table of Contents
Elementary Program Enrolment History by Grade ………………. ............................................ C1-C17
Elementary Program Retention Rates ....................................................................................... C18-C19
31 October 2006 Enrolment Statistics Report ........................................................................... C20-C35
2007-2008 Middle French Immersion Feeder Schools...................................................................... C36
OCDSB MFI Attendance Boundaries 2006-2007 Map ..................................................................... C37
2007-2008 Late French Immersion Feeder Schools .......................................................................... C38
OCDSB LFI Attendance Boundaries 2006-2007 Map ...................................................................... C39
2007-2008 Congregated Gifted Early French Immersion Program Locations .................................. C40
Immersion and Extended French Certificate History......................................................................... C41
Percentage of Immersion Students who Earn an Immersion or Extended Certificate ....................... C42
Elementary Split Grade Classes Five Year Summary................................................................ C43-C44
Non-Exceptional Students with IEP by Program............................................................................... C45
Number of IPRC’d Students by Program and Reported Exceptionality.................................... C46-C47
Number of Students Whose Mother Tongue is Not English & Number of Students Whose
Language Spoken at Home is Not English.................................................................................. C48
Gender Summary by Program ................................................................................................... C49-C52
Planning Division
13 March 2007
OTTAWA-CARLETON DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD
Elementary Program Enrolment History by Grade
October 1995-2006
All Program Enrolment by Grade
September
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
October
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
JK
3,757
3,977
4,111
4,317
4,395
4,620
4,662
4,625
SK
4,625
4,616
4,856
4,996
5,079
5,178
5,269
5,317
1
4,689
4,972
5,145
5,333
5,365
5,427
5,452
5,552
2
4,374
4,404
4,808
5,005
5,128
5,190
5,258
5,261
3
4,309
4,248
4,436
4,778
4,885
4,998
5,083
5,219
4
4,238
4,234
4,352
4,494
4,764
4,865
4,994
5,066
5
4,077
4,198
4,352
4,401
4,488
4,757
4,853
5,062
6
4,111
4,002
4,308
4,433
4,426
4,518
4,730
4,924
7
4,129
4,100
4,136
4,405
4,517
4,505
4,537
4,778
8
4,287
4,035
4,184
4,100
4,359
4,501
4,519
4,565
Other
1,906
1,987
2,028
2,211
2,328
2,550
2,583
2,194
Total
44,502
44,773
46,716
48,473
49,734
51,109
51,940
52,563
1,753
1,680
3,798
4,077
4,052
3,827
3,995
3,950
3,816
3,905
4,068
5,198
4,738
4,460
4,653
4,779
4,698
4,407
4,556
4,425
4,267
4,328
5,496
5,391
5,075
4,747
4,958
5,091
4,920
4,680
4,692
4,568
4,419
5,350
5,281
5,203
4,941
4,800
4,892
5,000
4,814
4,676
4,642
4,522
5,208
5,257
5,272
5,149
5,090
4,883
4,887
5,029
4,815
4,671
4,643
5,159
5,154
5,204
5,163
5,373
5,224
4,941
4,951
5,077
4,835
4,708
5,113
5,181
5,170
5,188
5,405
5,443
5,219
4,942
4,919
5,056
4,887
5,061
5,150
5,186
5,086
5,444
5,499
5,500
5,234
4,939
4,934
5,100
4,944
4,967
5,091
5,207
5,323
5,415
5,405
5,326
5,038
4,815
4,861
4,783
4,941
4,938
5,153
5,351
5,364
5,392
5,352
5,306
4,989
4,835
1,918
1,846
1,795
2,136
1,046
1,009
997
968
977
988
959
49,983
49,586
51,192
51,500
51,621
51,345
50,663
49,802
48,680
47,670
47,330
+/- Head
%
Count
Change
271
1943
1757
1261
1375
831
623
0.61
4.34
3.76
2.60
2.76
1.63
1.20
-2580
-397
1606
308
121
-276
-682
-861
-1122
-1010
-340
-4.91
-0.79
3.24
0.60
0.23
-0.53
-1.33
-1.70
-2.25
-2.07
-0.71
Note: The 2006 enrolment is preliminary October 31, 2006 enrolment.
Planning Division
C1
13 March 2007
OTTAWA-CARLETON DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD
Elementary Program Enrolment History by Grade
October 1995-2006
English Program Enrolment by Grade
September
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
October
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
JK
3,299
3,609
3,718
3,879
3,978
4,152
4,189
4,104
SK
2,132
2,233
2,422
2,570
2,592
2,595
2,723
2,882
1
2,289
2,637
2,854
2,991
3,006
3,022
3,004
3,179
2
2,263
2,311
2,649
2,864
2,927
2,976
3,030
3,045
3
2,383
2,391
2,477
2,762
2,878
2,948
3,034
3,174
4
2,408
2,445
2,529
2,553
2,765
2,888
2,970
3,072
5
2,456
2,567
2,627
2,640
2,621
2,799
2,961
3,140
6
2,409
2,465
2,576
2,674
2,644
2,723
2,850
3,106
7
2,055
2,003
2,131
2,243
2,396
2,351
2,375
2,581
8
2,353
2,224
2,184
2,198
2,304
2,447
2,428
2,500
Other
1,863
1,976
2,011
2,194
2,301
2,511
2,543
2,154
Total
25,910
26,861
28,178
29,568
30,412
31,412
32,107
32,937
1,325
1,281
3,435
3,910
3,899
3,683
3,828
3,789
3,688
3,771
3,916
2,817
2,638
2,516
2,589
2,644
2,498
2,378
2,315
2,052
1,954
1,818
3,219
3,165
3,042
2,826
2,930
2,990
2,777
2,640
2,480
2,204
2,088
3,197
3,250
3,216
3,087
3,025
3,048
3,105
2,879
2,761
2,621
2,373
3,202
3,304
3,431
3,300
3,357
3,232
3,192
3,239
2,975
2,892
2,772
3,192
3,215
3,317
3,343
3,449
3,379
3,221
3,130
3,113
2,751
2,728
3,188
3,294
3,334
3,351
3,595
3,578
3,432
3,277
3,187
3,150
2,881
3,226
3,321
3,395
3,335
3,673
3,751
3,685
3,488
3,338
3,249
3,252
2,775
2,784
2,932
3,100
3,167
3,374
3,397
3,238
3,050
2,928
2,889
2,699
2,880
2,904
3,061
3,341
3,316
3,461
3,420
3,297
3,066
2,995
1,884
1,812
1,748
2,084
1,036
998
987
959
967
978
950
30,724
30,944
33,270
33,986
34,116
33,847
33,463
32,374
30,908
29,564
28,662
+/- Head
%
Count
Change
951
1317
1390
844
1000
695
830
3.67
4.90
4.93
2.85
3.29
2.21
2.59
-2213
220
2326
716
130
-269
-384
-1089
-1466
-1344
-902
-6.72
0.72
7.52
2.15
0.38
-0.79
-1.13
-3.25
-4.53
-4.35
-3.05
Note: The 2006 enrolment is preliminary October 31, 2006 enrolment.
Planning Division
C2
13 March 2007
OTTAWA-CARLETON DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD
Elementary Program Enrolment History by Grade
October 1995-2006
Early French Immersion Program Enrolment by Grade
September
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
October
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
JK
216
218
228
236
230
237
262
295
SK
2,221
2,256
2,259
2,224
2,289
2,359
2,279
2,212
1
2,099
2,185
2,139
2,145
2,126
2,181
2,190
2,098
2
1,848
1,987
1,995
1,938
1,997
1,980
1,993
1,950
3
1,624
1,735
1,843
1,833
1,802
1,837
1,821
1,803
4
1,502
1,569
1,624
1,744
1,713
1,689
1,719
1,688
5
1,255
1,412
1,466
1,510
1,611
1,593
1,561
1,577
6
1,222
1,217
1,370
1,405
1,447
1,544
1,516
1,491
7
1,014
1,173
1,151
1,300
1,321
1,374
1,445
1,408
8
950
980
1,133
1,109
1,251
1,276
1,350
1,405
230
252
218
2,153
1,895
1,778
1,871
1,950
2,019
1,862
2,053
2,203
2,167
2,355
2,018
1,994
1,816
1,707
1,778
1,881
1,925
1,834
2,013
2,159
2,151
1,891
1,777
1,776
1,621
1,546
1,613
1,675
1,717
1,699
1,805
1,944
1,760
1,714
1,592
1,635
1,502
1,412
1,465
1,563
1,616
1,556
1,643
1,663
1,621
1,562
1,442
1,518
1,390
1,303
1,370
1,454
1,528
1,446
1,560
1,546
1,483
1,415
1,342
1,407
1,304
1,230
1,268
1,349
1,418
1,494
1,465
1,462
1,374
1,318
1,282
1,356
1,255
1,181
1,230
1,303
1,428
1,419
1,362
1,364
1,334
1,231
1,197
1,272
1,156
1,101
1,164
1,383
1,382
1,344
1,310
1,306
1,256
1,174
1,164
1,235
1,137
1,075
Other
Total
13,951
14,732
15,208
15,444
15,787
16,070
16,136
15,927
15,580
15,065
14,393
13,739
13,594
13,491
13,261
13,458
13,825
14,032
14,499
+/- Head
%
Count
Change
781
476
236
343
283
66
-209
5.60
3.23
1.55
2.22
1.79
0.41
-1.30
-347
-515
-672
-654
-145
-103
-230
197
367
207
467
-2.18
-3.31
-4.46
-4.54
-1.06
-0.76
-1.70
1.49
2.73
1.50
3.33
Note: The 2006 enrolment is preliminary October 31, 2006 enrolment.
Planning Division
C3
13 March 2007
OTTAWA-CARLETON DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD
Elementary Program Enrolment History by Grade
October 1995-2006
Middle French Immersion Program Enrolment by Grade
September
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
October
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
JK
SK
1
2
3
4
101
100
93
81
113
106
101
95
5
88
78
75
76
63
80
86
85
6
42
80
68
69
65
56
71
79
7
39
39
68
44
49
50
43
49
8
Other
36
36
69
43
51
39
39
Total
270
333
340
339
333
343
340
347
115
115
106
149
192
242
203
229
298
345
327
81
97
93
91
138
158
200
173
196
264
289
73
71
76
81
86
123
142
190
148
172
256
57
48
52
42
57
71
107
107
163
143
157
44
55
47
50
45
56
63
103
100
155
136
370
386
374
413
518
650
715
802
905
1,079
1,165
+/- Head
%
Count
Change
63
7
-1
-6
10
-3
7
23.33
2.10
-0.29
-1.77
3.00
-0.87
2.06
23
16
-12
39
105
132
65
87
103
174
86
6.63
4.32
-3.11
10.43
25.42
25.48
10.00
12.17
12.84
19.23
7.97
Note: The 2006 enrolment is preliminary October 31, 2006 enrolment.
Planning Division
C4
13 March 2007
OTTAWA-CARLETON DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD
Elementary Program Enrolment History by Grade
October 1995-2006
Late French Immersion Program Enrolment by Grade
September
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
October
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
JK
SK
1
2
3
4
5
6
154
131
160
119
113
7
734
773
677
672
626
596
527
550
8
737
688
719
623
623
590
556
460
547
562
532
486
475
463
463
434
467
434
451
470
479
479
493
430
444
406
418
404
422
413
Other
Total
1,625
1,592
1,556
1,414
1,362
1,186
1,083
1,010
1,017
1,041
1,011
979
905
907
869
852
871
856
864
+/- Head
%
Count
Change
-33
-36
-142
-52
-176
-103
-73
-2.03
-2.26
-9.13
-3.68
-12.92
-8.68
-6.74
7
24
-30
-32
-74
2
-38
-17
19
-15
8
0.69
2.36
-2.88
-3.17
-7.56
0.22
-4.19
-1.96
2.23
-1.72
0.93
Note: The 2006 enrolment is preliminary October 31, 2006 enrolment.
Planning Division
C5
13 March 2007
OTTAWA-CARLETON DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD
Elementary Program Enrolment History by Grade
October 1995-2006
Congregated Gifted English Program Enrolment by Grade
September
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
October
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
JK
SK
1
8
9
8
13
6
9
6
9
2
19
18
17
25
22
13
15
16
3
28
23
23
22
29
26
15
16
4
26
37
25
27
27
34
28
20
5
54
64
61
54
65
89
65
74
6
69
54
60
70
59
69
96
71
7
59
75
67
67
72
64
75
99
8
84
64
80
65
66
71
68
85
5
5
1
15
8
8
15
15
18
24
29
12
11
16
9
17
13
17
23
22
35
31
23
17
16
17
14
26
18
22
33
36
45
17
28
20
27
19
17
34
26
31
53
50
86
52
64
111
88
75
45
57
51
74
76
81
101
59
105
118
98
94
65
66
68
74
77
78
104
89
127
130
109
113
79
96
90
99
79
81
118
90
130
138
110
109
81
99
Other
Total
347
344
341
343
346
375
368
390
400
371
361
491
481
497
470
431
409
467
494
+/- Head
%
Count
Change
-3
-3
2
3
29
-7
22
-0.86
-0.87
0.59
0.87
8.38
-1.87
5.98
10
-29
-10
130
-10
16
-27
-39
-22
58
27
2.56
-7.25
-2.70
36.01
-2.04
3.33
-5.43
-8.30
-5.10
14.18
5.78
Note: The 2006 enrolment is preliminary October 31, 2006 enrolment.
Planning Division
C6
13 March 2007
OTTAWA-CARLETON DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD
Elementary Program Enrolment History by Grade
October 1995-2006
Congregated Gifted Early French Immersion Program Enrolment by Grade
September
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
October
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
JK
SK
1
2
3
4
5
32
33
43
49
52
59
41
41
6
35
32
35
43
47
52
70
42
7
42
37
42
47
39
46
56
51
8
34
43
32
36
51
44
48
53
38
47
52
51
42
49
36
29
26
49
59
43
60
50
56
71
54
50
37
36
39
59
36
46
65
49
75
77
61
56
42
42
48
47
41
49
68
67
72
81
57
61
45
46
Other
Total
143
145
152
175
189
201
215
187
164
194
216
224
255
252
228
179
165
175
212
+/- Head
%
Count
Change
2
7
23
14
12
14
-28
1.40
4.83
15.13
8.00
6.35
6.97
-13.02
-23
30
22
8
31
-3
-24
-49
-14
10
37
-12.30
18.29
11.34
3.70
13.84
-1.18
-9.52
-21.49
-7.82
6.06
21.14
Note: The 2006 enrolment is preliminary October 31, 2006 enrolment.
Planning Division
C7
13 March 2007
OTTAWA-CARLETON DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD
Elementary Program Enrolment History by Grade
October 1995-2006
Alternative Program Enrolment by Grade
September
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
October
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
JK
107
150
165
202
187
231
211
226
SK
103
127
175
202
198
224
267
223
1
96
141
144
184
227
215
252
266
2
85
88
147
178
182
221
220
250
3
98
99
93
161
176
187
213
226
4
44
83
81
89
146
148
176
191
5
25
44
80
72
76
137
139
145
6
16
23
39
53
51
74
127
135
198
147
145
167
153
144
167
161
128
134
152
228
205
166
193
185
181
167
188
170
146
155
254
227
216
199
242
212
203
191
181
181
151
250
243
195
224
212
218
203
195
194
181
174
223
222
233
197
217
213
212
205
191
187
183
172
175
199
202
195
196
180
196
181
158
157
160
145
144
169
200
176
202
176
191
170
164
144
132
144
135
178
191
173
199
170
176
156
7
8
Other
32
14
24
16
40
21
22
30
23
11
17
17
27
39
40
40
Total
574
766
941
1,190
1,305
1,522
1,691
1,765
24
30
44
77
88
69
71
106
81
71
62
41
25
34
53
72
90
69
80
100
83
71
34
34
47
52
10
11
10
9
10
10
9
1,728
1,585
1,567
1,668
1,752
1,701
1,657
1,706
1,597
1,497
1,434
+/- Head
%
Count
Change
192
175
249
115
217
169
74
33.45
22.85
26.46
9.66
16.63
11.10
4.38
-37
-143
-18
101
84
-51
-44
49
-109
-100
-63
-2.10
-8.28
-1.14
6.45
5.04
-2.91
-2.59
2.96
-6.39
-6.26
-4.21
Note: The 2006 enrolment is preliminary October 31, 2006 enrolment.
Planning Division
C8
13 March 2007
OTTAWA-CARLETON DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD
Elementary Program Enrolment History by Grade
October 1995-2006
French Schools
September
JK
1988
135
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Planning Division
SK
169
1
197
2
159
3
176
4
157
5
167
6
164
7
186
8
129
Other
43
Total
1,682
+/- Head
%
Count
Change
-1682
C9
-100.00
13 March 2007
OTTAWA-CARLETON DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD
Elementary Program Enrolment History by Grade
October 1995-2006
English Program Enrolment by Grade
September
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
October
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
JK
3,299
3,609
3,718
3,879
3,978
4,152
4,189
4,104
SK
2,132
2,233
2,422
2,570
2,592
2,595
2,723
2,882
1
2,289
2,637
2,854
2,991
3,006
3,022
3,004
3,179
2
2,263
2,311
2,649
2,864
2,927
2,976
3,030
3,045
3
2,383
2,391
2,477
2,762
2,878
2,948
3,034
3,174
4
2,408
2,445
2,529
2,553
2,765
2,888
2,970
3,072
5
2,456
2,567
2,627
2,640
2,621
2,799
2,961
3,140
6
2,409
2,465
2,576
2,674
2,644
2,723
2,850
3,106
7
2,055
2,003
2,131
2,243
2,396
2,351
2,375
2,581
8
2,353
2,224
2,184
2,198
2,304
2,447
2,428
2,500
Other
1,863
1,976
2,011
2,194
2,301
2,511
2,543
2,154
Total
25,910
26,861
28,178
29,568
30,412
31,412
32,107
32,937
1,325
1,281
3,435
3,910
3,899
3,683
3,828
3,789
3,688
3,771
3,916
2,817
2,638
2,516
2,589
2,644
2,498
2,378
2,315
2,052
1,954
1,818
3,219
3,165
3,042
2,826
2,930
2,990
2,777
2,640
2,480
2,204
2,088
3,197
3,250
3,216
3,087
3,025
3,048
3,105
2,879
2,761
2,621
2,373
3,202
3,304
3,431
3,300
3,357
3,232
3,192
3,239
2,975
2,892
2,772
3,192
3,215
3,317
3,343
3,449
3,379
3,221
3,130
3,113
2,751
2,728
3,188
3,294
3,334
3,351
3,595
3,578
3,432
3,277
3,187
3,150
2,881
3,226
3,321
3,395
3,335
3,673
3,751
3,685
3,488
3,338
3,249
3,252
2,775
2,784
2,932
3,100
3,167
3,374
3,397
3,238
3,050
2,928
2,889
2,699
2,880
2,904
3,061
3,341
3,316
3,461
3,420
3,297
3,066
2,995
1,884
1,812
1,748
2,084
1,036
998
987
959
967
978
950
30,724
30,944
33,270
33,986
34,116
33,847
33,463
32,374
30,908
29,564
28,662
Planning Division
C10
13 March 2007
OTTAWA-CARLETON DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD
Elementary Program Enrolment History by Grade
October 1995-2006
English Program Retention Rate
September
JK
SK
1988-1989
1989-1990
1990-1991
1991-1992
1992-1993
1993-1994
1994-1995
October
1995-1996
1996-1997
1997-1998
1998-1999
1999-2000
2000-2001
2001-2002
2002-2003
2003-2004
2004-2005
2005-2006
5 Year Avg Retention
3 Year Avg Retention
1 Year Avg Retention
1
124%
128%
123%
117%
117%
116%
117%
2
101%
100%
100%
98%
99%
100%
101%
3
106%
107%
104%
100%
101%
102%
105%
4
103%
106%
103%
100%
100%
101%
101%
5
107%
107%
104%
103%
101%
103%
106%
6
100%
100%
102%
100%
104%
102%
105%
7
83%
86%
87%
90%
89%
87%
91%
8
108%
109%
103%
103%
102%
103%
105%
112%
112%
115%
112%
113%
113%
111%
111%
107%
107%
107%
101%
101%
102%
101%
107%
104%
104%
104%
105%
106%
108%
105%
103%
106%
103%
109%
107%
105%
104%
103%
105%
106%
101%
100%
100%
97%
105%
101%
100%
98%
96%
92%
94%
104%
103%
104%
101%
108%
104%
102%
102%
102%
101%
105%
103%
104%
103%
100%
110%
104%
103%
102%
102%
102%
103%
89%
86%
88%
91%
95%
92%
91%
88%
87%
88%
89%
105%
104%
104%
104%
108%
105%
103%
101%
102%
101%
102%
109%
107%
107%
105%
106%
108%
105%
105%
106%
96%
94%
94%
102%
103%
105%
102%
102%
103%
89%
88%
89%
102%
102%
102%
Note: The October 2006 enrolment is preliminary.
Planning Division
C11
13 March 2007
OTTAWA-CARLETON DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD
Elementary Program Enrolment History by Grade
October 1995-2006
Early French Immersion Program Enrolment by Grade
September
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
October
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
JK
216
218
228
236
230
237
262
295
SK
2,221
2,256
2,259
2,224
2,289
2,359
2,279
2,212
1
2,099
2,185
2,139
2,145
2,126
2,181
2,190
2,098
2
1,848
1,987
1,995
1,938
1,997
1,980
1,993
1,950
3
1,624
1,735
1,843
1,833
1,802
1,837
1,821
1,803
4
1,502
1,569
1,624
1,744
1,713
1,689
1,719
1,688
5
1,255
1,412
1,466
1,510
1,611
1,593
1,561
1,577
6
1,222
1,217
1,370
1,405
1,447
1,544
1,516
1,491
7
1,014
1,173
1,151
1,300
1,321
1,374
1,445
1,408
8
950
980
1,133
1,109
1,251
1,276
1,350
1,405
Total
13,951
14,732
15,208
15,444
15,787
16,070
16,136
15,927
230
252
218
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,153
1,895
1,778
1,871
1,950
2,019
1,862
2,053
2,203
2,167
2,355
2,018
1,994
1,816
1,707
1,778
1,881
1,925
1,834
2,013
2,159
2,151
1,891
1,777
1,776
1,621
1,546
1,613
1,675
1,717
1,699
1,805
1,944
1,760
1,714
1,592
1,635
1,502
1,412
1,465
1,563
1,616
1,556
1,643
1,663
1,621
1,562
1,442
1,518
1,390
1,303
1,370
1,454
1,528
1,446
1,560
1,546
1,483
1,415
1,342
1,407
1,304
1,230
1,268
1,349
1,418
1,494
1,465
1,462
1,374
1,318
1,282
1,356
1,255
1,181
1,230
1,303
1,428
1,419
1,362
1,364
1,334
1,231
1,197
1,272
1,156
1,101
1,164
1,383
1,382
1,344
1,310
1,306
1,256
1,174
1,164
1,235
1,137
1,075
15,580
15,065
14,393
13,739
13,594
13,491
13,261
13,458
13,825
14,032
14,499
Planning Division
C12
13 March 2007
OTTAWA-CARLETON DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD
Elementary Program Enrolment History by Grade
October 1995-2006
Early French Immersion Program Retention Rate
September
JK
SK
1
2
1988-1989
98%
95%
1989-1990
95%
91%
1990-1991
95%
91%
1991-1992
96%
93%
1992-1993
95%
93%
1993-1994
93%
91%
1994-1995
92%
89%
October
1995-1996
91%
90%
1996-1997
93%
88%
1997-1998
96%
89%
1998-1999
96%
89%
1999-2000
95%
91%
2000-2001
96%
91%
2001-2002
95%
89%
2002-2003
98%
89%
2003-2004
98%
93%
2004-2005
98%
90%
2005-2006
99%
90%
5 Year Avg Retention
3 Year Avg Retention
1 Year Avg Retention
98%
98%
99%
90%
91%
90%
3
94%
93%
92%
93%
92%
92%
90%
4
97%
94%
95%
93%
94%
94%
93%
5
94%
93%
93%
92%
93%
92%
92%
6
97%
97%
96%
96%
96%
95%
96%
7
96%
95%
95%
94%
95%
94%
93%
8
97%
97%
96%
96%
97%
98%
97%
90%
91%
90%
92%
93%
91%
91%
93%
94%
92%
91%
92%
92%
91%
91%
93%
93%
92%
94%
93%
95%
93%
92%
93%
91%
91%
93%
93%
94%
94%
93%
93%
93%
95%
94%
95%
93%
93%
96%
96%
96%
96%
97%
97%
96%
95%
93%
93%
97%
93%
93%
94%
92%
93%
95%
98%
97%
95%
96%
96%
94%
95%
97%
97%
98%
98%
92%
92%
91%
93%
94%
93%
93%
93%
93%
96%
97%
97%
93%
93%
95%
97%
98%
98%
Note: The October 2006 enrolment is preliminary.
Planning Division
C13
13 March 2007
OTTAWA-CARLETON DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD
Elementary Program Enrolment History by Grade
October 1995-2006
Middle French Immersion Program Enrolment by Grade
September
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
October
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
JK
Planning Division
SK
1
2
3
4
101
100
93
81
113
106
101
95
5
88
78
75
76
63
80
86
85
6
42
80
68
69
65
56
71
79
7
39
39
68
44
49
50
43
49
8
0
36
36
69
43
51
39
39
Total
270
333
340
339
333
343
340
347
115
115
106
149
192
242
203
229
298
345
327
81
97
93
91
138
158
200
173
196
264
289
73
71
76
81
86
123
142
190
148
172
256
57
48
52
42
57
71
107
107
163
143
157
44
55
47
50
45
56
63
103
100
155
136
370
386
374
413
518
650
715
802
905
1,079
1,165
C14
13 March 2007
OTTAWA-CARLETON DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD
Elementary Program Enrolment History by Grade
October 1995-2006
Middle French Immersion Program Retention Rate
September
JK
SK
1
2
1988-1989
1989-1990
1990-1991
1991-1992
1992-1993
1993-1994
1994-1995
October
1995-1996
1996-1997
1997-1998
1998-1999
1999-2000
2000-2001
2001-2002
2002-2003
2003-2004
2004-2005
2005-2006
3
4
5 Year Avg Retention
3 Year Avg Retention
1 Year Avg Retention
5
77%
75%
82%
78%
71%
81%
84%
6
91%
87%
92%
86%
89%
89%
92%
7
93%
85%
65%
71%
77%
77%
69%
8
92%
92%
101%
98%
104%
78%
91%
85%
84%
81%
86%
93%
82%
83%
85%
86%
89%
84%
86%
88%
78%
87%
95%
89%
90%
95%
86%
88%
97%
72%
66%
73%
55%
70%
83%
87%
75%
86%
97%
91%
90%
96%
98%
96%
107%
98%
89%
96%
93%
95%
95%
85%
86%
84%
91%
90%
97%
87%
91%
91%
94%
95%
95%
Note: The October 2006 enrolment is preliminary.
Planning Division
C15
13 March 2007
OTTAWA-CARLETON DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD
Elementary Program Enrolment History by Grade
October 1995-2006
Late French Immersion Program Enrolment by Grade
September
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
October
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
JK
Planning Division
SK
1
2
3
4
5
C16
6
154
131
160
119
113
7
734
773
677
672
626
596
527
539
8
737
688
719
623
623
590
556
460
Total
1,625
1,592
1,556
1,414
1,362
1,186
1,083
999
547
562
532
486
475
463
463
434
467
434
451
470
479
479
493
430
444
406
418
404
422
413
1,017
1,041
1,011
979
905
907
869
852
871
856
864
13 March 2007
OTTAWA-CARLETON DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD
Elementary Program Enrolment History by Grade
October 1995-2006
Late French Immersion Program Retention Rate
September
JK
SK
1
1988-1989
1989-1990
1990-1991
1991-1992
1992-1993
1993-1994
1994-1995
October
1995-1996
1996-1997
1997-1998
1998-1999
1999-2000
2000-2001
2001-2002
2002-2003
2003-2004
2004-2005
2005-2006
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
94%
93%
92%
93%
94%
93%
87%
87%
88%
85%
93%
88%
93%
88%
90%
93%
90%
95%
5 Year Avg Retention
3 Year Avg Retention
1 Year Avg Retention
91%
93%
95%
Note: The October 2006 enrolment is preliminary.
Planning Division
C17
13 March 2007
OTTAWA-CARLETON DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD
Elementary Program Enrolment History by Grade
October 1995-2006
All SK to Grade 8 Cohort Retention Rate
October
SK
October
8
%
1995
1996
1997
1998
5,317
5,198
4,738
4,460
2003
2004
2005
2006
5,352
5,306
4,989
4,835
100.66%
102.08%
105.30%
108.41%
English SK to Grade 8 Cohort Retention Rate
October
SK
October
8
%
1995
1996
1997
1998
2,882
2,817
2,638
2,516
2003
2004
2005
2006
3,420
3,297
3,066
2,995
118.67%
117.04%
116.22%
119.04%
Early French Immersion SK to Grade 8 Cohort Retention Rate
October
SK
October
8
1995
1996
1997
1998
2,212
2,153
1,895
1,778
2003
2004
2005
2006
1,164
1,235
1,137
1,075
%
52.62%
57.36%
60.00%
60.46%
Middle French Immersion Grade 4 to 8 Cohort Retention Rate
October
4
October
8
1999
2000
2001
2002
149
192
242
203
2003
2004
2005
2006
103
100
155
136
%
69.13%
52.08%
64.05%
67.00%
Late French Immersion Grade 7 to 8 Cohort Retention Rate
October
7
October
8
2002
2003
2004
2005
463
434
467
434
2003
2004
2005
2006
418
404
422
413
Planning Division
%
90.28%
93.09%
90.36%
95.16%
C18
13 March 2007
OTTAWA-CARLETON DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD
Elementary Program Enrolment History by Grade
October 1995-2006
Grade 4 to 5 Cohort Retention Rate by Program
October
ALL
ENG
2002-2003
2003-2004
2004-2005
2005-2006
100.02%
99.35%
99.59%
101.08%
101.74%
101.82%
101.19%
104.73%
ENG
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
4
3,221
3,130
3,113
2,751
2,728
5
3,432
3,277
3,187
3,150
2,881
EFI
94.40%
92.55%
92.78%
92.80%
MFI
85.22%
85.59%
88.59%
83.77%
EFI
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
4
1,303
1,370
1,454
1,528
1,446
MFI
LFI
96.26%
93.46%
95.09%
95.10%
90.28%
93.09%
90.36%
95.16%
EFI
2002
2003
2004
2005
2005
7
1,197
1,272
1,156
1,101
1,164
5
1,304
1,230
1,268
1,349
1,418
MFI
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
4
203
229
298
345
327
5
200
173
196
264
289
8
1,174
1,164
1,235
1,137
1,075
MFI
2002
2003
2004
2005
2005
7
107
107
163
143
157
8
63
103
100
155
136
Grade 7 to 8 Cohort Retention Rate by Program
October
ALL
ENG
2002-2003
2003-2004
2004-2005
2005-2006
99.02%
99.62%
99.03%
100.42%
100.68%
101.82%
100.52%
102.29%
ENG
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
7
3,397
3,238
3,050
2,928
2,889
8
3,461
3,420
3,297
3,066
2,995
ALL
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
4
4,941
4,951
5,077
4,835
4,708
5
5,219
4,942
4,919
5,056
4,887
EFI
97.24%
97.09%
98.36%
97.64%
7
5,405
5,326
5,038
4,815
4,864
LFI
2002
2003
2004
2005
2005
7
463
434
467
434
451
8
406
418
404
422
413
8
5,392
5,352
5,306
4,989
4,835
Note: The October 2006 enrolment is preliminary.
Planning Division
C19
13 March 2007
Appendix A
Elementary
Enrolment Statistics
31 October 2006
(Number of Students Not ADE)
Notes:
1. The elementary enrolments have been reconciled to the 31 October 2006 month end reports and
Ministry report submitted by the principals.
2.
Comparison of October 2005 and October 2006 Staffing Enrolments.
Ottawa-Carleton District School Board
Enrolment Statistics
PRELIMINARY
Enrolment Staffing Data Unit/31 October 2006
page 1
Appendix A
ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS BY PROGRAM AND BY GRADE
Oct 05
Total
Total
432
Difference
School
Cap
P
Prog
JK
SK
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
SE
A. Lorne Cassidy
599
6
ENG
55
16
18
26
54
38
47
52
49
56
16
427
35
38
29
26
25
29
29
27
26
264
278
-14
-5.0
TOTAL
55
51
56
55
80
63
76
81
76
82
16
691
710
-19
-2.7
ENG
96
32
37
52
53
49
43
57
419
619
-200
-32.3
58
52
43
37
21
24
17
252
299
-47
-15.7
74
671
918
-247
-26.9
-7.8
EFI
Adrienne Clarkson
687
0
EFI
Agincourt
463
0
680
0
+/-5
%
-1.2
TOTAL
96
90
89
95
90
70
67
ENG
72
17
18
12
28
19
23
189
205
-16
59
62
45
46
27
38
277
279
-2
-0.7
466
484
-18
-3.7
-3.0
EFI
Alta Vista
DD
Oct 06
TOTAL
72
76
80
57
74
46
61
ENG
41
20
10
18
22
27
31
28
39
44
288
297
-9
43
43
35
27
20
21
17
23
22
251
250
1
0.4
28
23
51
53
-2
-3.8
90
89
EFI
LFI
TOTAL
41
63
53
53
49
47
52
45
Arch Street
314
0
ENG
17
20
27
24
27
24
26
34
Barrhaven
391
2
ENG
61
7
19
24
32
28
31
44
31
43
38
24
29
EFI
8
8
590
600
-10
-1.7
8
207
235
-28
-11.9
10
212
218
-6
-2.8
209
184
25
13.6
TOTAL
61
51
50
67
70
52
60
10
421
402
19
4.7
Bayshore
590
0
ENG
65
59
68
62
64
55
60
10
443
490
-47
-9.6
Bayview
282
1
ENG
60
62
54
51
64
43
EFI
TOTAL
60
62
54
51
64
43
Bells Corners
484
0
ENG
48
37
44
38
46
48
81
Berrigan
558
5
ENG
113
44
48
59
59
51
47
50
43
38
39
25
16
94
91
97
98
76
63
EFI
TOTAL
113
323
11
3.4
-6
-1.6
65
486
422
64
15.2
12
223
196
27
13.8
77
709
618
91
14.7
322
319
3
0.9
382
413
-31
-7.5
394
436
-42
-9.6
30
25
5
20.0
417
0
ENG
25
21
26
29
27
30
32
46
0
ENG
35
50
55
49
62
40
46
45
Bridlewood
435
2
ENG
11
17
39
27
40
29
32
43
G.ENG
73
77
14
16
23
6
11
17
39
27
40
29
32
43
87
93
6
424
461
-37
-8.0
30
23
34
43
57
53
64
47
57
53
8
469
493
-24
-4.9
74
73
147
139
8
5.8
25
25
25
25
100
97
3
3.1
156
151
TOTAL
30
23
34
43
57
53
89
72
Cambridge
311
0
ENG
8
18
15
19
17
23
21
23
Carleton Heights
389
0
ENG
10
15
15
17
21
14
9
19
Carson Grove
363
1
ENG
29
38
45
47
58
60
62
36
32
44
44
26
41
Castlefrank
404
2
ENG
21
Castor Valley
458
4
ENG
64
EFI
83
79
78
52
68
57
58
48
LFI
TOTAL
2
33
ENG
LFI
711
30
TOTAL
G. ENG
Cedarview
1.7
3.8
368
371
1
1
10
334
Briargreen
692
59
264
362
20
Blossom Park
Broadview
60
274
64
83
79
78
52
68
57
35
48
36
47
8
716
729
-13
-1.8
26
170
211
-41
-19.4
217
232
-15
-6.5
339
380
-41
-10.8
407
450
-43
-9.6
64
89
-25
-28.1
16
10
10
47
46
558
534
24
4.5
21
24
45
76
-31
-40.8
48
68
70
667
699
-32
-4.6
ENG
146
120
144
410
442
-32
-7.2
EFI
82
89
72
243
243
0
0.0
40
33
73
66
7
10.6
LFI
G. ENG
TOTAL
228
7
18
25
25
0
0.0
256
267
751
776
-25
-3.2
Centennial
321
0
ENG
28
24
20
22
27
24
13
28
26
212
244
-32
-13.1
Century
440
1
ENG
25
29
23
42
45
53
40
55
10
322
384
-62
-16.1
C.H. Hulse
517
0
ENG
55
50
46
53
54
55
58
62
452
459
-7
-1.5
Christie
231
0
ENG
15
12
13
16
11
12
11
21
116
140
-24
-17.1
Churchill
369
0
ALT
40
42
39
51
50
48
40
31
Connaught
389
0
ENG
24
25
28
20
35
23
27
33
Convent Glen
233
0
ENG
13
17
21
20
27
40
37
D.A. Moodie
502
0
ENG
115
94
95
EFI
23
21
TOTAL
522
1
ENG
341
349
-8
-2.3
247
-24
-9.7
175
190
-15
-7.9
325
326
-1
-0.3
18
62
67
-5
-7.5
3
8
11
21
-10
-47.6
138
118
121
398
414
27
77
70
350
384
-16
-34
-3.9
-8.9
Ottawa-Carleton District School Board
Enrolment Statistics
8
13
13
8
8
21
25
32
26
39
13
68
67
45
28
31
239
231
8
3.5
21
25
32
26
39
81
87
72
105
101
589
615
-26
-4.2
MFI
TOTAL
20
5
223
LFI
D.R. Kennedy
19
PRELIMINARY
Enrolment Staffing Data Unit/31 October 2006
page 2
School
Cap
P
Prog
JK
Devonshire
279
0
ENG
36
EFI
TOTAL
SK
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
26
29
24
19
216
208
8
3.8
29
24
19
252
252
0
0.0
-6.1
30
16
24
46
38
38
40
35
10
2
5
7
5
12
16
24
30
29
12
15
8
14
9
13
13
11
20
41
49
EFI
Fallingbrook
480
1
538
0
419
0
0
0
23
23
18
14
14
8
13
113
116
-3
-2.6
30
37
40
33
36
30
24
29
259
268
-9
-3.4
ENG
32
14
19
15
20
13
22
34
245
258
-13
-5.0
17
19
10
6
8
1
10
71
73
-2
-2.7
316
331
-15
-4.5
0.0
32
31
38
25
26
21
23
44
ENG
55
14
12
15
20
29
18
32
195
195
0
43
40
48
33
32
47
41
284
280
4
1.4
57
52
63
53
61
65
73
479
475
4
0.8
-8.7
55
268
0
60
57
72
189
207
-18
46
31
30
107
101
6
5.9
TOTAL
106
88
102
296
308
-12
-3.9
266
272
-6
-2.2
194
200
-6
-3.0
460
472
-12
-2.5
ENG
35
5
21
12
22
27
26
42
32
36
24
23
25
18
22
19
15
25
23
57
59
0
8
TOTAL
35
29
44
37
40
49
45
57
ENG
88
29
37
43
42
34
52
34
359
36
27
21
12
11
11
9
127
127
45
63
43
486
486
TOTAL
88
65
64
64
54
ENG
0
0
16
9
18
0
0
16
9
18
ENG
ENG
8
26
52
60
58
47
58
52
60
58
47
359
8
9
16
78
58
36
41
32
31
18
238
268
-30
158
169
-11
44
50
48
109
76
-6.5
396
437
-41
-9.4
27
41
57
85
31
31
36
104
314
336
-22
-6.5
28
126
128
-2
27
72
88
121
-1.6
132
440
464
-24
-5.2
58
40
30
23
310
51
7
13.7
311
-1
25
25
50
43
-0.3
7
16.3
55
48
418
405
13
3.2
205
220
-15
-6.8
26
58
40
ENG
92
113
-11.2
EFI
72
73
145
132
13
9.8
ALT
62
71
133
154
-21
-13.6
226
257
483
506
-23
-4.5
39
43
230
210
20
9.5
9
9
18
17
1
5.9
48
52
248
227
21
9.3
37
-37
186
201
-15
204
201
3
1.5
390
402
-12
-3.0
106
109
-3
-2.8
225
239
-14
-5.9
6.3
ENG
8
11
19
14
8
11
19
14
24
18
18
18
18
40
11
19
22
36
ENG
47
40
24
27
23
35
36
29
29
23
52
58
36
CLOSED
ENG
549
16
EFI
TOTAL
Forest Valley
29
ENG
LFI
Fitzroy Harbour
31
16
TOTAL
TOTAL
Fitzroy Centennial
-3.9
TOTAL
TOTAL
0
-5.1
-6
37
16
G. EFI
803
-15
29
16
EFI
Fisher Park
293
152
21
16
TOTAL
394
278
146
19
22
EFI
First Avenue
-13.5
15
TOTAL
614
-18
15
MFI
Fielding Drive
133
20
EFI
Featherston
1.9
115
17
EFI
Farley Mowat
3
14
TOTAL
0
-18
14
EFI
412
295
160
10
29
9
277
163
30
31
14
9
ENG
EFI
Emily Carr
10
14
TOTAL
EFI
4
%
-18.2
26
ENG
389
+/-8
40
ENG
Elmdale
44
40
0
2
36
Appendix
Difference A
31
0
386
Total
31
325
Elizabeth Park
Oct 05
Total
47
348
0
Oct 06
47
Dunning Foubert
242
DD
36
Dunlop
Elgin
SE
EFI
TOTAL
40
58
59
58
56
17
17
22
21
29
9
9
-7.5
General Vanier
213
0
ENG
Glashan
386
0
ENG
112
98
LFI
31
37
68
64
4
G. ENG
25
24
49
47
2
4.3
TOTAL
168
159
15
342
350
-8
-2.3
61
49
24
310
330
-20
-6.1
10
243
280
-37
-13.2
219
214
5
2.3
10
462
494
-32
-6.5
13
1.2
Glen Cairn
334
2
ENG
13
11
22
19
36
30
22
Glen Ogilvie
572
0
ENG
53
16
22
24
38
43
37
48
40
30
27
32
42
53
64
62
54
65
75
79
EFI
TOTAL
Goulbourn
400
2
23
15
ENG
124
93
108
338
334
4
EFI
36
33
30
99
92
7
7.6
23
18
41
36
5
13.9
149
156
LFI
478
462
16
3.5
Grant
233
0
TOTAL
ALT
15
19
19
10
27
16
15
26
147
168
-21
-12.5
Greely
233
0
ENG
18
23
19
26
32
36
28
39
221
231
-10
-4.3
Ottawa-Carleton District School Board
Enrolment Statistics
160
PRELIMINARY
13
Enrolment Staffing Data Unit/31 October 2006
page 3
School
Cap
P
Prog
Greenbank
551
0
Hawthorne
499
1
JK
SK
7
8
SE
ENG
100
116
8
575
0
2
3
4
5
6
0
95
-13
-13.7
59
11
18.6
LFI
28
33
61
64
-3
-4.7
G. EFI
13
12
25
24
1
4.2
TOTAL
219
235
8
462
473
-11
-2.3
16
378
392
-14
-3.6
77
73
4
5.5
455
465
-10
-2.2
-7.1
ENG
23
19
30
32
27
21
43
39
74
54
3
7
11
9
13
12
12
10
TOTAL
23
19
33
39
38
30
56
51
86
64
ENG
36
53
39
43
171
184
-13
32
30
24
33
28
26
40
46
30
289
308
-19
-6.2
30
21
51
46
5
10.9
9
11
4
2
26
104
119
96
537
538
-1
-0.2
ENG
109
92
109
310
326
-16
-4.9
EFI
43
54
36
133
142
-9
-6.3
LFI
23
19
42
40
2
5.0
G. ENG
10
8
18
15
3
20.0
-3.8
32
30
24
33
28
ENG
30
152
179
172
503
523
-20
7
15
19
28
20
24
17
16
181
170
11
6.5
25
12
23
14
18
18
16
18
9
153
137
16
11.7
35
25
TOTAL
30
30
19
38
33
46
38
40
ENG
11
20
14
19
13
19
12
15
Hopewell
800
0
ENG
82
15
9
26
27
11
14
8
35
39
44
52
51
37
36
31
44
57
56
43
20
35
13
24
EFI
MFI
G. EFI
Jack Donohue
561
10
461
0
529
0
0
369
6
132
111
21
18.9
21
45
39
6
15.4
859
829
30
3.6
306
300
6
2.0
65
21
20
30
29
35
26
30
27
23
53
46
22
28
19
22
19
24
12
245
207
38
18.4
65
74
66
52
57
54
48
49
51
35
551
507
44
8.7
ENG
33
28
39
107
102
5
4.9
EFI
33
54
60
147
139
8
5.8
TOTAL
66
82
99
254
241
13
5.4
ENG
87
65
51
75
55
57
61
59
602
581
21
3.6
35
29
36
18
15
26
21
13
236
263
-27
-10.3
83
82
72
87
88
82
94
87
93
70
48
28
18
37
33
41
27
25
26
25
15
15
17
TOTAL
48
53
44
62
48
56
44
ENG
37
17
13
15
22
24
28
39
25
16
12
9
13
11
12
14
11
9
16
13
12
43
38
40
53
52
63
37
42
TOTAL
42
ENG
40
42
40
ENG
39
Ottawa-Carleton District School Board
Enrolment Statistics
55
21.0
375
401
-26
-6.5
42
54
-12
-22.2
20.0
30
8.8
40
43
-3
-7.0
48
55
32
37
48
28
37
38
371
356
15
4.2
50
54
34
20
21
179
162
17
10.5
48
48
51
55
50
32
7
5
12
18
-6
-33.3
87
102
62
64
64
602
579
23
4.0
39
38
1
56
2.6
36
40
38
317
297
20
6.7
92
78
71
241
211
30
14.2
12
13
25
25
0
0.0
622
571
51
8.9
341
324
17
5.2
48
30
18
60.0
52
TOTAL
13
18
48
55
62
150
32
EFI
1.0
75
204
40
ENG
-16.5
1
180
47
48
-40
97
222
34
EFI
242
98
22
39
TOTAL
202
22
122
48
-15.5
10
130
40
-21.7
-67
10
128
ALT
-34
431
25
56
ENG
157
364
25
50
2
123
9
35
51
0
-12.0
35
46
204
-0.7
-33
35
39
337
-6
274
35
TOTAL
Lakeview
7
844
241
53
46
Lady Evelyn
7
838
9
53
48
TOTAL
7
47
ENG
ENG
7
43
TOTAL
TOTAL
8
45
MFI
0
21
ENG
G. EFI
314
-2.4
137
EFI
Le Phare
5.0
-10
129
LFI
5
13
418
87
EFI
383
261
408
65
MFI
Knoxdale
274
90
EFI
Katimavik
8
64
G. ENG
210
-11.7
77
EFI
Kars
8.8
-20
61
EFI
John Young
27
171
59
EFI
Jockvale
307
151
82
EFI
0
334
28
TOTAL
TOTAL
340
26
5
0
J.H. Putman
16
35
36
401
9
%
-3.0
70
Hilson
360
+/-7
82
EFI
Huntley Centennial
231
26
TOTAL
348
224
48
G.EFI
Heritage
Total
44
TOTAL
0
Oct 05
Total
34
LFI
746
Appendix
Difference A
Oct 06
EFI
EFI
Henry Munro
DD
MFI
G. ENG
Henry Larsen
1
9
50
48
28
37
25
32
220
207
13
6.3
50
48
28
37
25
32
268
237
31
13.1
55
32
23
71.9
43
47
61
41
30
44
266
265
1
0.4
43
47
61
41
30
44
321
297
24
8.1
PRELIMINARY
Enrolment Staffing Data Unit/31 October 2006
page 4
Oct 05
Total
Total
30
196
196
+/0
%
0.0
3.0
Cap
P
Prog
JK
SK
1
2
3
4
5
6
Leslie Park
282
0
ENG
14
22
22
23
32
24
29
Manor Park
607
0
ENG
53
EFI
ALT
Manordale
355
1
26
Manotick
279
0
Maple Ridge
595
9
544
0
SE
DD
14
8
14
15
15
12
136
132
4
45
41
30
19
29
19
243
242
1
0.4
16
22
33
29
27
33
24
210
199
11
5.5
79
81
81
82
73
61
77
55
39
12
27
20
18
34
37
35
18
19
12
14
12
15
7
TOTAL
39
30
46
32
32
46
52
42
ENG
40
3
11
19
9
14
28
31
26
27
21
15
15
589
573
16
2.8
9
231
253
-22
-8.7
97
97
0
0.0
9
328
350
-22
-6.3
134
213
-79
-37.1
135
200
-65
-32.5
269
413
-144
-34.9
565
553
12
2.2
349
320
29
9.1
10
TOTAL
40
34
37
46
30
29
43
ENG
90
32
42
42
54
57
54
62
63
60
57
42
35
43
34
49
31
30
28
EFI
Mary Honeywell
8
5
ENG
EFI
7
60
TOTAL
EFI
Appendix
Difference A
Oct 06
School
10
9
G. ENG
Program Phased Out
0
0
0
0.0
G.EFI
Redirected to Henry Larsen
0
13
-13
-100.0
TOTAL
90
89
84
77
97
91
103
ENG
59
15
22
32
30
34
36
37
37
35
29
38
36
59
52
59
67
59
72
72
EFI
TOTAL
93
93
88
914
886
28
3.2
24
9
252
338
-86
-25.4
212
254
-42
-16.5
24
464
592
-128
-21.6
McGregor Easson
210
0
ENG
20
21
12
22
19
13
19
21
147
172
-25
-14.5
Meadowlands
426
0
ENG
27
35
33
51
38
41
39
56
320
362
-42
-11.6
29
357
350
7
2.0
169
191
-22
-11.5
262
247
15
6.1
125
123
2
1.6
370
17
4.6
-13.5
Metcalfe
437
0
ENG
16
13
16
19
15
26
35
Munster
213
0
ENG
20
28
21
25
26
23
26
Mutchmor
386
0
ENG
17
19
32
39
35
37
41
32
12
13
25
25
25
25
44
52
60
62
66
57
10
387
282
326
-44
10
153
148
5
3.4
122
129
-7
-5.4
G. ENG
TOTAL
17
19
North Gower
256
1
ENG
22
36
32
33
51
53
55
Orleans Wood
386
0
ENG
32
12
13
12
22
22
11
19
18
20
19
21
15
17
12
EFI
78
102
8
10
TOTAL
32
30
33
31
43
37
28
31
10
275
277
-2
-0.7
Osgoode
234
0
ENG
12
22
16
17
35
29
33
38
10
212
218
-6
-2.8
Parkwood Hills
403
0
ENG
42
42
51
-9
-17.6
54
62
67
46
53
40
46
368
391
-23
-5.9
42
54
62
67
46
53
40
46
410
442
-32
-7.2
21
29
31
37
31
37
35
390
390
0
0.0
60
56
4
7.1
364
353
11
3.1
EFI
TOTAL
Pinecrest
513
0
ENG
13
Pleasant Park
282
4
ENG
60
EFI
Queen Elizabeth
600
0
63
72
57
55
42
42
60
63
72
57
55
42
42
33
ENG
13
11
16
20
18
24
25
25
15
11
13
EFI
TOTAL
56
27
33
TOTAL
MFI
73
13
11
16
20
18
39
36
38
100
117
10
18
9
6
119
141
8
8
7
7
424
409
15
3.7
384
399
-15
-3.8
28
42
-14
-33.3
54
52
2
3.8
466
493
-27
-5.5
Queen Mary
323
0
ENG
19
26
22
29
29
40
27
43
16
251
268
-17
-6.3
Queenswood
335
0
ENG
28
6
7
4
19
19
18
18
13
132
148
-16
-10.8
20
16
18
2
13
7
8
84
85
-1
-1.2
28
26
23
22
21
32
25
26
13
216
233
-17
-7.3
15
EFI
TOTAL
R.B. Curry
297
0
ENG
23
20
20
25
42
25
31
35
Regina
288
0
ENG
26
27
19
23
21
22
24
26
20
20
23
23
36
18
37
236
228
8
3.5
188
180
8
4.4
Richmond
190
0
ENG
177
185
-8
-4.3
Rideau Valley
423
0
ENG
111
78
82
271
293
-22
-7.5
EFI
34
42
34
110
108
2
1.9
17
12
29
26
3
11.5
137
128
LFI
410
427
-17
-4.0
Riverview (Ottawa)
372
0
TOTAL
ALT
31
39
37
33
37
34
28
145
23
262
303
-41
-13.5
Robert Bateman
591
0
ENG
51
19
30
35
47
47
45
42
316
300
16
5.3
29
27
26
18
29
15
26
170
172
-2
-1.2
EFI
TOTAL
51
48
57
61
65
76
60
68
486
472
14
3.0
Robert E. Wilson
269
0
ENG
18
20
18
28
28
35
31
34
212
237
-25
-10.5
Robert Hopkins
430
0
ENG
34
13
20
26
20
36
39
188
217
-29
-13.4
30
29
15
27
11
10
122
104
18
17.3
43
49
41
47
47
49
310
321
-11
-3.4
EFI
TOTAL
Ottawa-Carleton District School Board
Enrolment Statistics
34
PRELIMINARY
Enrolment Staffing Data Unit/31 October 2006
page 5
Appendix
Difference A
Oct 06
Oct 05
School
Cap
P
Prog
JK
SK
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
SE
DD
Total
Total
Roberta Bondar
705
3
ENG
58
20
19
22
26
44
33
53
113
127
7
10
532
571
41
26
40
27
35
27
14
23
41
274
279
-5
-1.8
TOTAL
58
61
45
62
53
79
60
67
136
168
7
10
806
850
-44
-5.2
ENG
69
21
27
25
39
36
32
38
287
228
59
0.0
54
56
48
20
23
18
15
234
176
58
0.0
75
83
73
59
59
50
53
521
404
117
0.0
7.6
EFI
Roch Carrier
418
3
EFI
Rockcliffe Park
315
3
TOTAL
69
ENG
50
EFI
+/-39
%
-6.8
7
19
16
22
27
24
20
185
172
13
53
41
51
38
33
28
29
273
255
18
7.1
458
427
31
7.3
TOTAL
50
60
60
67
60
60
52
49
Roland Michener
288
4
ENG
43
50
38
36
42
53
40
49
351
327
24
7.3
Sawmill Creek
587
0
ENG
42
23
25
21
32
31
33
40
17
30
294
324
-30
-9.3
42
43
31
35
33
28
34
22
29
297
318
-21
-6.6
11
14
25
31
-6
-19.4
50
73
-8.5
EFI
LFI
TOTAL
42
65
68
52
67
64
61
74
Severn
317
0
ENG
21
14
17
26
31
28
26
30
Sir W. Churchill
639
0
ENG
Stephen Leacock
483
7
207
0
550
2
590
0
5
54
16.0
-3.0
62
130
134
-4
58
57
1
1.8
TOTAL
308
260
580
529
51
9.6
48
ENG
12
87
TOTAL
87
ENG
63
87
65
22
33.8
579
517
62
12.0
92
79
67
62
58
47
60
66
30
20
50
40
10
25.0
92
79
67
62
58
47
60
96
68
716
622
94
15.1
8
12
26
22
16
36
183
46
40
18
19
18
7
148
183
148
331
TOTAL
63
54
52
44
41
34
43
331
ENG
102
34
34
42
49
43
53
357
349
8
75
56
61
33
39
42
306
282
24
8.5
109
90
103
82
82
95
663
631
32
5.1
6
14
14
18
23
21
21
27
28
232
254
-22
-8.7
40
50
37
40
27
21
31
38
20
304
303
1
0.3
23
18
26
12
13
92
84
8
9.5
73
60
78
77
61
628
641
-13
-2.0
-7.0
TOTAL
102
ENG
60
MFI
291
338
25
EFI
Terry Fox
2.7
392
68
EFI
Stonecrest
5
33
EFI
Stittsville
-57
LFI
LFI
549
12
673
188
EFI
EFI
Steve MacLean
173
616
193
TOTAL
60
ENG
24
EFI
46
64
4
18
2.3
51
58
13
9
16
9
19
26
36
44
200
215
-15
16
11
7
10
18
16
22
29
147
141
6
4.3
12
16
28
15
13
86.7
70
89
375
371
4
1.1
85
100
-15
-15.0
-12.7
LFI
TOTAL
24
22
29
20
23
19
37
42
Torbolton
158
0
ENG
5
11
6
8
2
24
13
16
Trillium
598
0
ENG
27
6
10
13
18
25
25
35
27
28
220
252
-32
36
37
30
31
33
32
25
22
17
263
244
19
7.8
31
23
54
47
7
14.9
EFI
LFI
Vincent Massey
698
0
TOTAL
27
42
47
43
49
58
57
60
80
68
6
537
543
-6
-1.1
ENG
36
23
28
24
26
37
50
34
58
69
33
418
419
-1
-0.2
22
21
12
8
12
EFI
G. EFI
7
7
27
29
145
131
14
10.7
13
10
7
11
41
31
10
32.3
92
109
604
581
23
4.0
130
151
-21
-13.9
-3.7
TOTAL
36
45
49
36
34
49
70
51
Viscount Alexander
164
0
ENG
12
19
13
13
16
11
15
31
W.E. Gowling
643
0
ENG
33
45
51
52
56
52
53
52
W.E. Johnston
440
3
ENG
18
29
32
46
53
37
59
51
88
79
W. O. Mitchell
521
8
ENG
54
22
30
42
51
49
42
54
66
53
41
33
32
28
16
26
24
34
30
TOTAL
54
63
63
74
79
65
68
78
100
83
ENG
86
109
92
83
71
64
53
49
EFI
Woodroffe
452
4
EFI
York
Sub-Total
363
0
50223
129
6
TOTAL
86
109
92
83
71
64
53
49
ENG
11
13
18
17
14
22
28
16
53
55
4069
4329
4419
4523
4642
4708
4887
5100
4864
4837
33
25
419
435
-16
8
500
495
5
1.0
9
472
503
-31
-6.2
264
266
-2
-0.8
9
736
769
-33
-4.3
Cap
P
Clifford Bowey
180
0
Crystal Bay
135
0
Sub-Total
315
0
50538.0
129
Total Elementary
Ottawa-Carleton District School Board
Enrolment Statistics
Totals by grade not applicable
4069
4329
4419
4523
4642
4708
4887
PRELIMINARY
5100
4864
4837
83
3
3.6
468
53
11.3
10.2
607
551
56
247
236
11
4.7
47170
47506
-1153
-353
685
107
Oct 06
Oct 05
SE
DD
Total
Total
90
90
Developmental Disability Centres
School
86
521
Difference
91
+/-1
%
-1.1
72
72
73
-1
-1.4
0
162
162
164
-2
-1.2
685
269
47332
47670
-338
-0.7
Enrolment Staffing Data Unit/31 October 2006
page 6
SCHOOL
Cap
Oct 05
Total
Total
427
432
-5
%
-1.2
419
619
-200
-32.3
189
205
-7.8
8
288
297
-16
-9
8
207
235
-28
-11.9
P
JK
SK
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
SE
49
56
16
A. Lorne Cassidy
599
6
55
16
18
26
54
38
47
52
Adrienne Clarkson
687
0
96
32
37
52
53
49
43
57
Agincourt
463
0
17
18
12
28
19
23
Alta Vista
680
0
72
41
20
10
18
22
27
31
28
Arch Street
314
0
17
20
27
24
27
24
26
34
39
44
Appendix
Difference
Oct 06
English Program
DD
+/-
-3.0
Barrhaven
391
2
61
7
19
24
32
28
31
10
212
218
-6
-2.8
Bayshore
590
0
65
59
68
62
64
55
60
10
443
490
-47
-9.6
Bayview
282
1
60
60
59
1
1.7
Bells Corners
484
0
48
37
44
38
46
48
81
20
362
368
-6
-1.6
Berrigan
558
5
113
59
27
51
30
47
32
65
46
0.0
23
322
319
3
0.9
Briargreen
371
0
25
35
59
29
64
0
48
26
422
417
44
21
486
Blossom Park
50
55
49
62
40
46
45
382
413
-31
-7.5
-9.6
30
33
Bridlewood
435
2
11
17
39
27
40
29
32
43
73
77
6
394
436
-42
Broadview
692
1
30
23
34
43
57
53
64
47
57
53
8
469
493
-24
-4.9
Cambridge
311
0
8
18
15
19
17
23
21
23
26
170
211
-41
-19.4
Carleton Heights
389
0
10
15
15
17
21
14
9
19
217
232
-15
-6.5
Carson Grove
363
1
29
38
45
47
58
60
62
339
380
-41
-10.8
36
32
44
44
26
41
407
450
-43
-9.6
64
89
-25
-28.1
410
442
-32
-7.2
212
244
-32
-13.1
-16.1
Castlefrank
404
2
21
Castor Valley
458
4
64
Cedarview
711
2
Centennial
321
0
58
146
28
24
20
22
27
24
13
1
25
29
23
42
45
53
40
55
0
55
50
46
53
54
55
58
62
Christie
231
0
15
12
13
16
11
12
11
21
Connaught
389
0
24
25
28
20
35
23
27
33
Convent Glen
233
0
13
17
21
20
27
40
37
25
32
26
39
13
20
502
0
1
21
Devonshire
279
0
36
144
19
5
8
115
94
95
27
77
70
Dunlop
325
0
30
16
24
46
38
38
40
35
Dunning Foubert
348
0
10
2
5
7
5
12
16
24
Elgin
242
0
30
14
17
15
22
16
16
16
29
Elizabeth Park
386
2
32
14
19
15
20
13
22
34
389
4
55
14
12
15
20
29
18
32
Emily Carr
412
0
Fallingbrook
480
1
35
5
21
12
22
27
Farley Mowat
538
0
88
29
37
16
43
42
34
9
18
8
27
9
41
16
78
58
57
85
104
419
0
Fielding Drive
614
0
First Avenue
394
0
Fisher Park
803
0
Fitzroy Centennial
268
0
13
8
10
30
Elmdale
Featherston
10
10
10
440
517
522
120
47
16
26
C.H. Hulse
D.A. Moodie
48
36
28
Century
D.R. Kennedy
35
31
29
60
57
72
26
42
32
36
52
34
14
9
16
8
26
58
8
11
19
14
24
18
18
36
Forest Valley
549
0
40
11
19
22
27
213
0
17
17
22
21
29
23
386
0
Glen Cairn
334
2
13
11
22
19
36
30
22
Glen Ogilvie
572
0
53
16
22
24
38
43
37
Goulbourn
400
2
Greely
233
0
348
0
Hilson
401
0
30
11
5
20
13.7
-6.8
-7.5
-2.8
-13.2
1.2
221
231
-10
-4.3
100
116
8
224
231
-7
-3.0
74
54
16
378
392
-14
-3.6
53
39
43
171
184
-13
-7.1
109
92
109
310
326
-16
-4.9
17
16
181
170
11
6.5
28
151
171
-20
-11.7
8
274
261
13
5.0
306
300
6
2.0
107
102
5
4.9
602
581
21
3.6
241
274
-33
-12.0
202
242
-40
-16.5
42
54
-12
-22.2
14
8
35
39
26
30
27
23
33
28
39
87
45
47
65
51
75
55
57
61
59
Ottawa-Carleton District School Board
Enrolment Statistics
7
-3
11
42
51
-15
35
0
-6.5
58
109
27
210
-11.2
201
29
Kars
-22
106
26
28
-30
336
186
30
27
268
314
9.5
9
24
238
-100.0
20
41
-2.2
-37
15
22
-6
359
37
21
33
272
0
82
15
266
20
65
37
-8.7
4
15
13
-18
-37
12
18
207
334
19
28
0.0
189
280
13
17
-5.0
0
338
19
48
-13
195
243
14
37
258
195
13
24
0
245
10
20
0
-3.9
108
28
461
-6
93
19
529
152
124
15
John Young
1.9
146
-5.9
7
Jockvale
3
-15
0
0
-18
220
9
10
295
160
210
800
340
-6.1
277
163
205
360
561
-18.2
230
Huntley Centennial
Jack Donohue
-8
43
Hopewell
J.H. Putman
44
-6.1
39
Heritage
-8.9
36
-14
43
36
-1
-34
-20
21
0
326
384
239
27
0
-0.3
325
350
330
32
746
-7.9
225
30
575
-9.7
-15
310
19
Henry Munro
-24
190
15
39
Henry Larsen
247
175
24
28
23
223
98
36
0
-17.1
49
32
1
-24
61
26
551
140
112
19
499
-1.5
116
23
23
Greenbank
-7
113
9
18
Hawthorne
-62
92
35
Glashan
384
459
39
Fitzroy Harbour
General Vanier
322
452
359
7
9
39
PRELIMINARY
7
A
Enrolment Staffing Data Unit/31 October 2006
page 7
English Program (continued)
SCHOOL
Cap
P
JK
SK
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
SE
DD
Appendix
Difference
Oct 06
Oct 05
Total
Total
+/-3
Katimavik
369
6
40
40
43
Knoxdale
383
5
39
39
38
1
2.6
Lakeview
204
2
48
48
30
18
60.0
Le Phare
314
0
55
55
32
23
71.9
Leslie Park
282
0
14
22
22
23
32
24
29
30
196
196
0
0.0
Manor Park
607
0
53
5
14
8
14
15
15
12
136
132
4
3.0
Manordale
355
1
39
12
27
20
18
34
37
35
231
253
-22
-8.7
134
213
-79
-37.1
565
553
12
2.2
252
338
-86
-25.4
Manotick
279
0
40
3
11
19
9
14
28
Maple Ridge
595
9
90
32
42
42
54
57
54
Mary Honeywell
544
0
59
15
22
32
30
34
36
9
10
62
63
9
60
24
McGregor Easson
210
0
20
21
12
22
19
13
19
21
147
172
-25
-14.5
Meadowlands
426
0
27
35
33
51
38
41
39
56
320
362
-42
-11.6
Metcalfe
437
0
16
13
16
19
15
26
35
29
357
350
7
2.0
Munster
213
0
20
28
21
25
26
23
26
169
191
-22
-11.5
Mutchmor
386
0
17
19
32
39
35
37
41
262
247
15
6.1
North Gower
256
1
22
36
32
33
51
53
55
282
326
-44
-13.5
78
102
8
10
32
Orleans Wood
386
0
32
12
13
12
22
22
11
19
10
153
148
5
3.4
Osgoode
234
0
12
22
16
17
35
29
33
38
10
212
218
-6
-2.8
Parkwood Hills
403
0
42
42
51
-9
-17.6
Pinecrest
513
0
13
21
29
31
37
31
37
35
27
390
390
0
0.0
Pleasant Park
282
4
60
60
56
4
7.1
Queen Elizabeth
600
0
13
11
16
20
18
24
25
25
384
399
-15
-3.8
73
100
56
117
8
7
Queen Mary
323
0
19
26
22
29
29
40
27
251
268
-17
-6.3
335
0
28
6
7
4
19
19
18
43
18
16
Queenswood
13
132
148
-16
-10.8
15
236
228
8
3.5
188
180
8
4.4
177
185
-8
-4.3
-7.5
R.B. Curry
297
0
23
20
20
25
42
25
31
35
Regina
288
0
26
27
19
23
21
22
24
26
Richmond
190
0
20
20
23
23
36
18
37
Rideau Valley
423
0
271
293
-22
Robert Bateman
591
0
51
19
30
35
47
47
45
42
316
300
16
5.3
Robert E. Wilson
269
0
18
20
18
28
28
35
31
34
212
237
-25
-10.5
-13.4
111
Robert Hopkins
430
0
34
13
20
26
20
36
39
Roberta Bondar
705
3
58
20
19
22
26
44
33
53
Roch Carrier
418
3
69
21
27
25
39
36
32
78
82
188
217
-29
532
571
-39
-6.8
38
287
228
59
25.9
7.6
113
127
7
10
Rockcliffe Park
315
3
50
7
19
16
22
27
24
20
185
172
13
Roland Michener
288
4
43
50
38
36
42
53
40
49
351
327
24
7.3
Sawmill Creek
587
0
42
23
25
21
32
31
33
40
294
324
-30
-9.3
21
14
17
26
31
28
26
30
Severn
317
0
Sir W. Churchill
639
0
Stephen Leacock
483
7
87
Steve MacLean
549
0
63
8
12
26
22
16
36
17
30
207
173
12
193
188
5
2.7
392
338
54
16.0
87
65
22
33.8
183
183
Stittsville
550
2
102
34
34
42
49
43
53
357
349
8
2.3
Stonecrest
590
0
60
6
14
14
18
23
21
21
27
28
232
254
-22
-8.7
36
44
200
215
-15
-7.0
85
100
-15
-15.0
-12.7
Terry Fox
291
5
24
4
13
9
16
9
19
26
Torbolton
158
0
5
11
6
8
2
24
13
16
Trillium
598
0
27
6
10
13
18
25
25
35
27
28
6
220
252
-32
Vincent Massey
698
0
36
23
28
24
26
37
50
34
58
69
33
418
419
-1
-0.2
Viscount Alexander
164
0
12
19
13
13
16
11
15
31
130
151
-21
-13.9
25
419
435
-16
-3.7
8
500
495
5
1.0
472
86
247
28496
503
83
236
29400
-31
3
11
-904
-6.2
3.6
4.7
-3.1
W.E. Gowling
643
0
33
45
51
52
56
52
53
52
W.E. Johnston
440
3
18
29
32
46
53
37
59
51
88
79
W. O. Mitchell
Woodroffe
York
Total ENG
521
452
363
n/a
8
4
0
n/a
54
86
11
3917
22
30
42
51
49
42
54
66
53
13
1818
18
2088
17
2374
14
2771
22
2728
28
2881
16
3252
53
2889
55
2995
Ottawa-Carleton District School Board
Enrolment Statistics
PRELIMINARY
9
676
107
A
%
-7.0
Enrolment Staffing Data Unit/31 October 2006
page 8
Early French Immersion Program
SCHOOL
Cap
P
A.L. Cassidy
599
6
Adrienne Clarkson
687
0
Agincourt
463
0
Alta Vista
680
0
Barrhaven
391
2
Bayview
282
1
Berrigan
558
5
Castor Valley
458
4
Cedarview
711
2
D.A. Moodie
502
0
Devonshire
279
0
Dunning Foubert
348
0
Elgin
242
0
Elizabeth Park
386
2
Elmdale
389
4
Emily Carr
412
0
Fallingbrook
480
1
Farley Mowat
538
0
Fielding Drive
614
0
First Avenue
394
0
Fisher Park
803
0
Forest Valley
549
0
Glen Ogilvie
572
0
Goulbourn
400
2
Greenbank
551
0
Henry Larsen
575
0
Henry Munro
746
0
Heritage
348
0
Hopewell
800
0
Huntley Centennial
360
9
J. H. Putman
340
0
Jack Donohue
561
10
Jockvale
461
0
John Young
529
0
Kars
210
0
Katimavik
369
6
Knoxdale
383
5
Lakeview
204
2
Le Phare
314
0
Manor Park
607
0
Manordale
355
1
Manotick
279
0
Maple Ridge
595
9
Mary Honeywell
544
0
Orleans Wood
386
0
Parkwood Hills
403
0
Pleasant Park
282
4
Queen Elizabeth
600
0
Queenswood
335
0
Rideau Valley
423
0
Robert Bateman
591
0
Robert Hopkins
430
0
Roberta Bondar
705
3
Roch Carrier
418
3
Rockcliffe Park
315
3
Sawmill Creek
587
0
Sir W. Churchill
639
0
Stephen Leacock
483
7
Steve MacLean
549
0
Stittsville
550
0
Stonecrest
590
0
Terry Fox
291
5
Trillium
598
0
Vincent Massey
698
0
W.O. Mitchell
521
8
Woodroffe
452
4
Total EFI
n/a
JK
n/a
Ottawa-Carleton District School Board
Enrolment Statistics
SK
35
58
59
43
44
62
50
83
l
38
52
62
43
31
54
43
79
2
29
43
45
35
43
51
38
78
3
26
37
46
27
38
64
39
52
4
25
21
27
20
24
43
25
68
5
29
24
38
21
29
6
29
17
7
27
8
26
17
23
22
16
57
47
89
21
46
72
18
47
12
23
17
43
31
15
23
19
40
40
8
18
10
48
26
14
14
6
33
29
9
14
8
32
24
13
8
1
47
11
20
24
36
23
27
25
21
18
12
22
11
31
25
30
23
36
28
52
60
58
47
40
19
11
31
30
12
48
82
23
19
13
13
10
41
46
15
9
31
23
72
73
47
48
40
40
36
30
29
27
29
32
23
42
33
34
46
54
18
57
24
54
21
30
48
30
36
9
56
12
60
13
37
38
30
28
10
18
42
34
23
41
29
62
48
36
32
30
24
33
28
26
40
43
16
44
19
33
26
25
44
53
12
52
46
23
51
22
14
37
28
18
36
19
18
31
22
43
25
25
53
48
46
50
43
60
18
31
57
37
18
54
63
35
26
16
35
48
51
48
47
45
19
26
42
37
20
62
72
29
25
12
35
55
50
28
61
41
12
27
35
35
19
67
57
36
15
9
25
32
56
37
41
30
14
21
43
29
21
46
55
18
15
13
10
37
36
25
30
19
12
15
34
38
15
53
42
15
17
11
22
48
40
32
44
29
15
15
49
36
17
40
42
20
16
18
2
13
7
29
30
41
54
53
42
27
29
26
56
41
43
26
15
40
48
51
31
18
27
27
20
38
35
29
11
35
23
33
33
15
10
27
18
28
28
92
46
75
40
18
36
22
41
79
40
56
50
16
37
21
33
67
18
61
37
11
30
12
32
62
19
33
40
7
31
8
28
58
18
39
27
10
33
12
16
47
7
42
21
18
32
7
26
60
22
68
66
31
16
25
7
24
38
22
22
27
34
20
29
17
29
30
109
2356
92
2151
83
1944
71
1643
64
1446
53
1418
49
1303
1164
1075
12
28
38
19
7
31
12
46
33
8
34
26
14
15
29
34
PRELIMINARY
Oct 06
Oct 05
Total
264
252
277
251
209
274
223
558
243
62
216
115
113
71
284
107
194
127
126
310
145
204
219
99
82
289
133
153
408
245
147
236
123
98
180
371
317
220
266
243
97
135
349
212
122
368
364
28
84
110
170
122
274
234
273
297
130
579
148
306
304
147
263
145
264
521
Total
278
299
279
250
184
264
196
534
243
67
208
133
116
73
280
101
200
14500
14032
128
311
132
201
214
92
95
308
142
137
418
207
139
263
157
97
150
356
297
207
265
242
97
200
320
254
129
391
353
42
85
108
172
104
279
176
255
318
134
517
282
303
141
244
131
266
468
Difference
+/-14
-47
-2
1
25
10
27
24
0
-5
8
-18
-3
-2
4
6
-6
127
-2
-1
13
3
5
7
-13
-19
-9
16
-10
38
8
-27
-34
1
30
15
20
13
1
1
0
-65
29
-42
-7
-23
11
-14
-1
2
-2
18
-5
58
18
-21
-4
62
148
24
1
6
19
14
-2
53
468
Appendix A
%
-5.0
-15.7
-0.7
0.4
13.6
0.0
13.8
0.0
0.0
-7.5
3.8
-13.5
-2.6
-2.7
1.4
5.9
-3.0
-1.6
-0.3
9.8
1.5
2.3
7.6
-13.7
-6.2
-6.3
11.7
-2.4
18.4
5.8
-10.3
-21.7
1.0
20.0
4.2
6.7
6.3
0.4
0.4
0.0
-32.5
9.1
-16.5
-5.4
-5.9
3.1
-33.3
-1.2
1.9
-1.2
17.3
-1.8
0.0
7.1
-6.6
-3.0
12.0
8.5
0.3
4.3
7.8
10.7
-0.8
11.3
3.3
Enrolment Staffing Data Unit/31 October 2006
page 9
Appendix A
Middle French Immersion Program
JK
SK
l
2
3
Oct 06
Oct 05
Difference
SCHOOL
Cap
P
4
5
6
7
8
Total
Total
+/-
D. R. Kennedy
522
1
68
67
45
28
31
239
231
8
36
41
32
31
18
158
169
-11
-6.5
44
26
70
59
11
18.6
%
3.5
Featherston
419
0
Greenbank
551
0
Hopewell
800
0
43
20
35
13
21
132
111
21
18.9
Katimavik
369
6
50
54
34
20
21
179
162
17
10.5
Knoxdale
383
5
92
78
71
241
211
14.2
Queen Elizabeth
600
0
15
11
13
9
6
54
52
30
2
Stonecrest
590
0
23
18
26
12
13
92
84
8
9.5
Total MFI
n/a
n/a
327
289
256
157
136
1165
1079
86
8.0
Oct 06
Oct 05
4
5
6
7
8
Total
Total
+/-2
Late French Immersion Program
JK
SK
l
2
3
3.8
Difference
SCHOOL
Cap
P
Alta Vista
680
0
28
23
51
53
Broadview
692
1
74
73
147
139
8
5.8
Castor Valley
458
4
21
24
45
76
-31
-40.8
Cedarview
711
2
40
33
73
66
7
10.6
D.A. Moodie
502
0
3
8
11
21
-10
-47.6
Fitzroy Centennial
268
0
9
9
18
17
1
5.9
Glashan
386
0
31
37
68
64
4
6.3
Goulbourn
400
2
23
18
41
36
5
13.9
%
-3.8
Greenbank
551
0
28
33
61
64
-3
-4.7
Henry Larsen
575
0
30
21
51
46
5
10.9
Henry Munro
746
0
23
19
42
40
2
5.0
Katimavik
369
6
7
5
12
18
-6
-33.3
Rideau Valley
423
0
17
12
29
26
3
11.5
Sawmill Creek
587
0
11
14
25
31
-6
-19.4
Sir W. Churchill
639
0
33
25
58
57
1
1.8
Stephen Leacock
Terry Fox
Trillium
Total LFI
483
291
598
n/a
7
5
0
n/a
30
12
31
451
20
16
23
413
50
28
54
864
40
15
47
856
10
13
7
8
25.0
86.7
14.9
0.9
Oct 06
Oct 05
7
14
25
7
25
12
10
8
16
25
18
24
10
8
93
101
Total
30
100
25
49
77
18
75
0
125
499
Total
25
97
25
47
73
15
62
0
123
467
Oct 06
Oct 05
7
8
13
4
24
12
2
21
Total
43
24
Congregated Gifted English
SCHOOL
Cap
Bridlewood
435
Broadview
692
Cedarview
711
Glashan
386
Hawthorne
499
Henry Munro
746
John Young
529
Maple Ridge
595
Mutchmor
386
Total Gifted ENG
n/a
P
2
1
2
0
1
0
0
9
0
n/a
JK
SK
l
3
2
7
14
11
Program Phased Out
12
13
29
31
3
4
5
6
25
25
11
9
13
12
9
16
13
12
25
45
25
50
25
76
25
74
4
5
25
6
25
9
11
12
13
13
59
10
59
7
48
11
46
Total
50
25
26
45
25
0
41
212
7
8
SE
62
71
9
Congregated Gifted Early French Immersion
SCHOOL
Cap
P
JK
SK
l
2
3
First Avenue
394
0
Greenbank
551
0
Henry Larsen
575
Hopewell
800
0
Knoxdale
383
0
Maple Ridge
595
9
Redirected to Henry Larsen
Vincent Massey
698
0
Total Gifted EFI
n/a
n/a
Difference
+/5
3
0
2
4
3
13
0
2
32
%
20.0
3.1
0.0
4.3
5.5
20.0
21.0
0.0
1.6
6.9
Difference
39
25
13
31
175
+/7
1
26
6
0
-13
10
37
%
16.3
4.2
Oct 06
Oct 05
Total
341
133
147
Total
349
154
168
+/-8
-21
-21
%
-2.3
-13.6
-12.5
341
324
17
5.2
15.4
0.0
0.0
32.3
21.1
Difference
Alternative
SCHOOL
Churchill
Fisher/Summit
Grant
Cap
369
803
233
P
0
0
0
JK
40
SK
42
1
39
2
51
3
50
4
48
5
40
6
31
15
19
19
10
27
16
15
26
Lady Evelyn
337
0
40
39
34
47
40
32
48
52
Manor Park
607
0
26
16
22
33
29
27
33
24
210
199
11
5.5
Riverview (Ottawa)
372
0
33
174
37
183
34
157
28
164
23
156
-41
-13.5
n/a
37
151
303
n/a
39
155
262
Total Alt
31
152
1434
1497
-63
-4.2
Ottawa-Carleton District School Board
Enrolment Statistics
PRELIMINARY
62
71
9
Enrolment Staffing Data Unit/31 October 2006
page 10
Appendix A
Secondary
Enrolment Statistics
PRELIMINARY
31 October 2006
(Number of Students Not ADE)
Notes:
1. The secondary enrolments have been reconciled to the 31 October 2006
month end reports and Ministry report submitted by principals.
2. Comparison of October 2005 and October 2006 Staffing Enrolments.
Ottawa-Carleton District School Board
Secondary Enrolment Statistics
PRELIMINARY
Enrolment Staffing Data Unit/31 October 2006
page 13
Appendix A
SECONDARY SCHOOLS BY PROGRAM BY GRADE
Regular English
SCHOOL
A.Y. Jackson
Cap
759
Oc
P
8
Pre
Grade 9
20
12
<6 U/M
240
12
≥6 U/M
21 &
Older Other
Oct 06
Oct 05
Total
869
Total
879
293
1040
285
946
174
169
672
9
199
10
230
11
200
228
228
271
207
205
249
156
154
12
Difference
+/-10
%
-1.1
1045
-5
-0.5
1041
-95
-9.1
707
-35
-5.0
Bell
1092
4
Brookfield
1107
0
Cairine Wilson
831
0
Canterbury
1134
7
346
340
323
323
1332
1298
34
2.6
Colonel By
975
5
287
290
274
284
1135
1085
50
4.6
Earl of March
969
12
11
285
279
307
306
1188
1202
-14
-1.2
Glebe
1458
0
11
361
378
348
349
1447
1445
2
0.1
Gloucester
1608
0
19
251
244
284
311
1109
1196
-87
-7.3
Hillcrest
1164
0
8
276
291
300
262
1137
1167
-30
-2.6
John McCrae
807
8
238
287
261
288
1074
1065
9
0.8
Lisgar
807
2
247
229
298
289
1071
977
94
9.6
Merivale
1362
0
287
292
315
368
1262
1379
-117
-8.5
19
8
Nepean
849
2
294
359
273
278
1204
1181
23
1.9
Osgoode Township
651
5
132
143
198
176
649
683
-34
-5.0
185
132
144
101
562
611
-49
-8.0
193
196
213
205
827
828
-1
-0.1
1
254
283
283
267
-3.3
3
231
288
251
301
1344
1
310
304
242
327
West Carleton
861
0
155
158
192
158
Woodroffe
912
0
241
226
186
194
Total Reg
22917
0
58
5363
5536
5586
5774
Vocational
SCHOOL
Ottawa Technical
Cap
1071
Oc
P
0
Rideau
966
0
Ridgemont
969
0
Sir R. Borden
1104
Sir W. Laurier
1188
South Carleton
Sir Guy Carleton
783
Total Voc.
1854
Alternate Program Sites
SCHOOL
Cap
Elizabeth Wyn Wood 366
20
108
Pre
Grade 9
100
0
0
0
Oc
P
0
12
0
Pre
Grade 9
123
139
160
91
86
73
143
191
209
212
303
9
30
10
75
11
118
12
12
<6 U/M
70
6
0
12
-37
-2
-0.2
1183
1203
-20
-1.7
-5.6
663
702
-39
886
868
18
2.1
53
22420
22765
-345
-37.15
Oct 06
Oct 05
Total
625
Total
620
+/5
%
0.8
Other
103
12
≥6 U/M
1124
1079
39
21 &
0
1087
1077
Difference
77
470
471
-1
-0.2
180
1095
1091
4
0.4
Oct 06
Oct 05
Total
293
Total
+/-
%
292
1
0.3
21 &
Older Other
Difference
Frederick Banting
n/a
0
7
42
58
111
218
231
-13
-5.6
Norman Johnston
189
0
42
48
65
62
217
215
2
0.9
Richard Pfaff
324
0
56
86
95
58
295
288
7
2.4
Urban Aboriginal
n/a
0
9
5
5
1
20
11
9
81.8
Total Alternate
879
0
144
256
341
302
0
0
1043
1037
6
0.6
Pre
Grade 9
11
12
12
≥6 U/M
Oct 05
10
12
<6 U/M
Oct 06
9
Total
1236
Total
1184
+/52
%
4.4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1236
1184
52
4.4
Pre
Grade 9
11
12
12
≥6 U/M
Oct 05
10
12
<6 U/M
Oct 06
9
Total
19
Total
22
Adult Day Program
SCHOOL
Cap
Adult High School
1176
0
0
Oc
P
0
Total Adult
1176
0
0
Other Programs
SCHOOL
OCDC
Cap
n/a
Oc
P
0
Phoenix House
n/a
Total Other
Total Secondary
0
0
26826
0
0
21 &
Older Other
829
829
0
21 &
Older Other
Difference
Difference
+/-3
%
-13.6
0
1
5
-4
-80.0
0
20
27
-7
-25.9
25814
26104
-290
-1.1
58
108
5698
6001
6139
6379
829
233
Notes:
The "Pre-Grade 9" column represents the Secondary Developmental Disability (DD) students
Grade 12: College Preparation, Workplace Preparation and Open courses.
Grade 12 < 6 U/M: University Preparation and/or University/College Preparation courses.
Grade 12 > 6 U/M: University Preparation and/or University/College Preparation courses.
Other: Secondary Special Education = Autism, General Learning Program, Program for Pupils with Physical Diabilities, Dual Diagnosis and Storefront students.
Ottawa-Carleton District School Board
Secondary Enrolment Statistics
PRELIMINARY
Enrolment Staffing Data Unit/31 October 2006
page 14
2007-2008 Middle French Immersion Feeder Schools
MFI SITE
D. Roy Kennedy PS
Grades 4-8
Agincourt Road PS
Bayshore PS
FEEDER SCHOOL
Connaught PS
(excluding area bounded by
Grant Alternative PS *
Hilson Avenue PS
Pinecrest PS
(north of Highway 417 only)
Bell's Corners PS
(north of Highway 417 only)
Broadview PS
Churchill Alternative PS
Broad/Rochester/Somerset/
CPR Rail Line/Ottawa River)
D. Roy Kennedy PS
Elmdale PS
(west of CPR Rail Line only)
Regina Street PS
Severn Avenue PS
W.E. Gowling PS
Featherston PS
Grades 4-8
Alta Vista PS
Arch Street PS
Blossom Park PS
Carleton Heights PS
(east of Rideau River only)
Charles H. Hulse PS
Dunlop PS
Elizabeth Park PS
Featherston Drive PS
General Vanier PS
Hawthorne PS
Riverview Alternative PS
Robert Bateman PS
Roberta Bondar PS
Sawmill Creek ES
Vincent Massey PS
Hopewell Avenue PS
Grades 4-8
Cambridge Street CPS
Centennial PS
Connaught PS
(area bounded by
Elgin Street PS
Elmdale PS
(east of CPR Rail Line only)
Hopewell Avenue PS
Lady Evelyn Alternative PS
Mutchmor PS
Viscount Alexander PS
York Street PS
Broad/Rochester/Somerset/
CPR Rail Line/Ottawa River)
Katimavik ES
Grades 4-8
A. Lorne Cassidy ES
John Young ES
Bridlewood CES
Munster PS
Castlefrank ES
Richmond PS
Glen Cairn PS
Roch Carrier ES
Jack Donohue PS+
+(option area for J. Donohue/H. Centennial)
Roland Michener PS
Stittsville PS
W. Erskine Johnston PS
W.O. Mitchell ES
Knoxdale PS
Grades 4-6
Note: grades 7&8
attend Greenbank MS
MFI Program
Adrienne Clarkson ES
Barrhaven PS
Bell's Corners PS
(south of Highway 417 only)
Berrigan ES
Briargreen PS
Carleton Heights PS
(west of Rideau River only)
Century PS
Christie PS
Farley Mowat P.S.
Grant Alternative PS *
Jockvale ES
Leslie Park PS
Manordale PS
Mary Honeywell ES
McGregor Easson PS
Meadowlands PS
Pinecrest PS
(south of Highway 417 only)
Queen Elizabeth PS
Grades 4-8
Carson Grove ES
Manor Park PS
Queen Elizabeth PS
Queen Mary Street PS
Robert E. Wilson PS
Robert Hopkins PS
Rockcliffe Park PS
Stonecrest ES
Grades 4-8
Fitzroy Centennial PS
Stonecrest ES
Huntley Centennial PS+
Torbolton PS
+(option area for J. Donohue/H. Centennial)
Note: * Students residing in Grant Alternative PS boundary are, depending on address, directed to either Knoxdale PS
or D. Roy Kennedy PS for the MFI program. Please call the Boundary Line (596-8780) for information and clarification.
Planning
C36
April 2007
OCDSB MFI Attendance Boundaries 2006-2007
µ
R
D
L
NA
GIO
RE
24 59
44
11
ST
N
CK RD
HEMLO
DR
SUS
SEX
RD
ND
RIC
HM
O
RIVERSIDE DR
RR
D
D
ER
UR
UM
SA
E
RD
RIV
E
ST
E
BR
ID
G
DR
42
LM
DA
Y
EN
RD
EA
RID
E
ALL
UV
RS
YD
Orleans
NIXON
RD
ENG, EFI
L
VIL
EL
RV
MA
47 28
NE
JK - 8
63
LI
Avalon PS (Sept. 2008)
RD
ST
TH
UR
FO
999
ND
LA
RIA
TO
VIC
RN
YD
ST
Greely
Gloucester
Orleans
Gloucester
Orleans
Orleans
Gloucester
Greely
Gloucester
Navan
Kars
Manotick
Orleans
Metcalfe
North Gower
Gloucester
Osgoode
Orleans
Kars
Gloucester
Orleans
Orleans
IS
E
ALL
UV
W
39
E
AK
SN
EA
RID
AN
Area
EFI, LFI
ENG
ENG, EFI
ENG, EFI
ENG, EFI
ENG, EFI
ENG, EFI
ENG
ENG, EFI, LFI, G.ENG
ENG, EFI
EFI
ENG, EFI
ENG, EFI
ENG
ENG
ENG, EFI
ENG
ENG, EFI
ENG,LFI, LFI
ENG, EFI
ENG, EFI, LFI
ENG, EFI, LFI
S
EN
OW
RD
35
R
SD
A LE
FW
EO
INC
PR
E
CB
M
D
YR
UR
NT
CE
W
DIL
R
GE
RO
S
EN
EV
ST
TH
OR
RD
Legend
DR
D Roy Kennedy PS 4 to 6 MFI (#871)
Featherston PS 4 to 8 MFI (#919)
RD
Programs
JK - 8
JK - 5
JK - 8
6-8
JK - 8
JK - 5
JK - 5
JK - 6
JK - 8
JK - 8
JK - 5
JK - 5
JK - 8
JK - 8
JK - 5
JK - 6
JK - 6
JK - 6
6-8
JK - 5
JK - 8
JK - 8
DR
D
DR
41
ILL
RH
YE
DW
Grades
EY
R
IE D
OD
MO
ST
Schools with No Designated Middle Frecnch Immersion Program
Castor Valley ES
Convent Glen ES
Dunning-Foubert ES
Emily Carr MS
Fallingbrook ES
Forest Valley ES
Glen Ogilvie PS
Greely ES
Henry Larsen ES
Heritage PS
Kars PS
Manotick PS
Maple Ridge ES
Metcalfe PS
North Gower/Marlborough PS
Orleans Wood ES
Osgoode PS
Queenswood PS
Rideau Valley MS
Steve MacLean PS
Terry Fox ES
Trillium ES
22
CH
MIT
D
DR
LAN
SS
RU
D
ER
OIR
EG
GR
RD
L
FIE
NK
BA
DR
HY
OP
BR
63
11
58
13
65
67
19
22
62
37
28
35
60
39
41
59
42
44
47
141
24
72
141
D
HR
AC
CO
GE
STA
ST
ON
LE S
EAG
IN
H
RT
PE
VA
LL
TRAIL RD
HUNTLEY
RD
RD
INE
DEV
ST
MA
RD
RD
RD
D
R
LE
LD
U
D
LR
SEL
RUS
RD
NK
BA
E
AL
KV
C
JO
IL
SV
ITT
ST
E
FI
IM
ITR
LE
RD
RY
NDA
BOU
RD
W
LO
RD
D
ER
LIN
AVE
L
L
FA
RID
EA
37
8TH
FFE
RO
OD
WO
L
HI
RD
NK
R
YE
RD
A
NB
EE
GR
RD
DW
ZE
HA
N
EA
LD
D
ER
SID
NAVAN
RD
RD
ION
ALB
RD
DR
IEW
X
R
PE
UP
PE
HO
LE
ER
ST
ALE
RIV
ME
FO
ADIU
M DR
ARV
CED
Y
RR
TE
PALL
n
999
LE
DA
CK
RO
D
HR
RC
MA
Greenbank M.S.
nKnoxdale P.S.
RD
RD
OY
NR
CO
D
ER
IN
Katimavik E.S.
School
Y
W
L
SE
BA
UB
CL
NT
HU
PK
n
E
AV
ES
INN
n Featherston Drive P.S.
HERON RD
RD
EY
KL
L
WA
DS
60
D
ER
LIN
T
R
PO
R
AI
15
D. Roy Kennedy P.S.
RD
58
RD
ON
RS
DE
AN
E
AV
AY
HW
CA
RP
G
IN
RL
CA
Location #
Hopewell Avenue P.S.
n
62
65 72
RD
ST
RD
ST
RD
ON
GT
LIN
TW
VIE
GIL
RD O
NTRY
COVE
N
SO
ON
BR
HIG
N
UR
NB
KI
DE
SI
L
WE
TS
SE
ER
OM
WS
Queen Elizabeth P.S.
19 13
n
67
IR
DE
LVD
A
BL
SI
PK
WY
IN
MA
ST
TA
ET
AL
G
T
US
GIN
EL
R
D
VA
NIE
R
EA
RID
RD
B
PH
4
17
RD
ING
NN
DU
RD
K
IC
R
ER
H
n
RD
Stonecrest E.S.
MONTREAL
SE
JO
ST.
JEAN
NE D
'ARC
BLV
AD
RO
TH
TEN
BI
O
NR
DU
UR
O
RB
HA
FI
TZ
RO
Y
ST A
YL
W
IN
RD
FE
R
R
Y
Greenbank M.S. 7 to 8 (#135)
E
NN
DO
Y
LL
DR
Greenbank M.S. 7 to 8 (#136)
Hopewell P.S. 4 to 8 MFI (#988)
Option 4 to 6 MFI to Katimavik E.S. or Stonecrest E.S.
Katimavik ES 4 to 8 MFI (#103)
Knoxdale P.S. 4 to 6 MFI (#194)
Queen Elizabeth P.S. 4 to 8 MFI (#1074)
Stonecrest MFI Gr 4 to 8 (#196)
2007-2008 Late French Immersion Feeder Schools
LFI SITE
Alta Vista PS
Broadview PS
Alta Vista PS
Arch Street PS
Blossom Park PS
Carleton Heights PS
Charles H. Hulse PS
Dunlop PS
Broadview PS
Churchill Alternative PS
Connaught PS
(west of CPR Rail Line only)
FEEDER SCHOOL
Elizabeth Park PS
Featherston Drive PS
Fielding Drive PS
Greely ES
Hawthorne PS
McGregor Easson PS
Queen Mary Street PS
Riverview Alternative PS
Robert Bateman PS
Roberta Bondar PS
Sawmill Creek ES
Vincent Massey PS
D. Roy Kennedy PS
Elmdale PS
Grant Alternative PS*
Hilson Avenue PS
J.H. Putman PS
Lady Evelyn Alternative PS**
Pinecrest PS
Regina Street PS
Severn Avenue PS
W.E. Gowling PS
Metcalfe PS
Osgoode PS
Torbolton PS
Castor Valley ES
Greely ES
Cedarview MS
Cedarview MS
Fitzroy Centennial PS
Fitzroy Centennial PS
Huntley Centennial PS
Stonecrest ES
Goulbourn MS
A. Lorne Cassidy ES
Goulbourn MS
Glashan PS
Cambridge Street CPS
Centennial PS
Connaught PS
Hopewell Avenue PS
Lady Evelyn Alternative PS**
Manor Park PS
Mutchmor PS
Queen Elizabeth PS
Robert E. Wilson PS
Rockcliffe Park PS
Viscount Alexander PS
York Street PS
(east of CPR Rail Line only)
Elgin Street PS
Greenbank MS
Briargreen PS
D.A. Moodie IS
Grant Alternative PS*
Leslie Park PS
Manordale PS
Henry Larsen ES
Emily Carr MS
Henry Larsen ES
Orleans Wood ES
Terry Fox ES
Henry Munro MS
Henry Munro MS
Rideau Valley MS
Rideau Valley MS
Steve MacLean PS
Sir W. Churchill PS
Adrienne Clarkson ES
Berrigan ES
Century PS
Farley Mowat PS
Meadowlands PS
Stephen Leacock PS
Bridlewood CES
Castlefrank ES
Glen Cairn PS
Jack Donohue PS
John Young ES
Roland Michener PS
Roch Carrier ES
W. Erskine Johnston PS
W.O. Mitchell ES
Trillium ES
Dunning-Foubert ES
Fallingbrook CES
Heritage PS
Maple Ridge ES
Queenswood PS
Trillium ES
Note: * Students residing in Grant Alternative PS boundary are, depending on address, directed to either Broadview PS or Greenbank MS for
the LFI program.
**Students residing in Lady Evelyn Alternative PS boundary are, depending on address, directed to either Broadview PS or Glashan PS for the
LFI program.
Please call the Boundary Line (596-8780) for information and clarification
Planning
C38
April 2007
OCDSB LFI Attendance Boundaries 2006-2007
RE G IONAL
R O A D 1 74
ER
F
D
U
RY
O
D
ER
RD
U
BO
ND
ARY
RD
R
ED
RD
D
S ID
R
LIN
ER
D
S
IA
T
EG
R
TO
GR
ACH RD
RD
YR
D
TH
EN
RD
ER
LW
OR
LM
DA
KE
ND
LA
IS
OI R
S TAGECO
EL
UR
D
ND
D
8TH
AZ
D
UM
SR
SA
D
EN
R
LL
n
RV
MA
LM
DA
EN
YR
LL
VI
EL
E
RD
D
D
S
NS
RD
NR
DR
E
EV
ING
RD
SO
LEY
ST
ER
R
RD
Trillium E.S. Gr 7 to 8 LFI (#1603)
AL
UV
EA
SD
NE
LI
S
EN
TH
G
ER
V
TE
UR
RD
FO
LL
Terry Fox E.S. JK to 8 ENG&EFI and 7 to 8 LFI (#61)
D
AN
R ID
HI
Terry Fox E.S. 7 to 8 ENG & EFI & LFI (#64)
T
Rideau Valley M.S.
R
YE
Stephen Leacock P.S. Grade 7 to 8 LFI (#106)
D
DW
DW
R
GE
H
OW
ER
SS E
LA
SS
RU
Castor Valley E.S.
R
A
SN
DR
Katimavik E.S. 7 to 8 LFI (#104)
Sir Winston Churchill P.S. 7 to 8 ENG & EFI & LFI (#154)
RD
D
DI
RO
D
TC
MI
KS
T
YR
DR
Goulbourn M.S. 6 to 8 LFI (#1709 new for 2005-2006)
Sawmill Creek E.S. 7 to 8 LFI new for 2006-2007(#58)
E
AN
UR
CENT
Y
PH
IEL
KF
DR
RO
Greenbank M.S. 7 to 8 (#136)
RU
VIN
DE
N
BA
E
CB
S
Glashan P.S. 7 to 8 LFI Revised (#952)
Rideau Valley M.S. 7 to 8 LFI new for 2006-2007 (#1508)
ILL
M
O
BR
Fitzroy Centennial P.S. 7 to 8 LFI (#203)
Henry Munro M.S. 6 to 8 ENG & EFI and 7 to 8 LFI (#51)
A YV
MS
D
ST
D. Aubrey Moodie I.S. 6 to 8 ENG & 6 to 8 EFI & 7 to 8 LFI (#134)
Henry Larsen P.S. 7 to 8 LFI (#45)
RA
N
BA
n
Greenbank M.S. 7 to 8 (#135)
LL R
ER
RD
Cedarview M.S. 6 to 8 ENG & 6 to 8 EFI & 7 to 8 LFI (#131)
R U S SE
VIC
RI V
RD
LL
HI
Castor Valley E.S. 7 to 8 LFI (#1505)
D
Cedarview M.S.
DR
ON
R
YE
TH
AN R
n
R
Legend
Broadview P.S. 7 to 8 LFI (#808)
RD
DIE
DW
LE S
R
NT L E Y
N AV
O
MO
EAG
PE
UP
Goulbourn M.S.
S
RD
D
IEL
ON
F
AL
WF
LO
NE
Sawmill Creek E.S.
n
R
PE
Alta Vista P.S. 7 to 8 LFI (#784)
n
D. Aubrey Moodie I.S.
H
HU
NT
D
Greenbank M.S.
RD
n
HU
BR
I
ALB
AN
n
RD
BR
D
U
CL
n
RD
RD
DE
N
SO
R
AI
CH
RD
Katimavik E.S. n
B
RO
T
ER
LU
IN
n Alta Vista P.S.
RD
TC
BL
AR
M
RP
CA
Stephen Leacock P.S. n
S
WE
E
IV
n
UN
TH
R
LVD
15
Sir Winston Churchill P.S.
R
E
IN
IE
H
Henry Larsen E.S.
TB
AY
BA
L
SE
ILV
EN
HW
RD
E
AV
G
OG
UR
G
BU
DE
n
IN
LA
ST.
HI
N
KI
SI
Broadview P.S.
RL
CA
N
WY
n
PK
Glashan M.S. n
Fitzroy Centennial P.S.
RN
E
MO
ER
D
RI
V AN
I
ST
AU
n
E AL R D
TR
EP
Trillium E.S.
INE
D
DE
. J OS
n
NN
R
A
SI
ST
VD
L
TH
N
BI
Henry Munro M.S.
RD
BL
DU
R
G
A
TT
LE
n
N
TE
N
RD
Terry Fox E.S.
DO
N
L
NE
LY
DR
µ
2007-2008 Congregated Gifted Program Locations
Congregated Gifted English
School
Bridlewood CES
Broadview PS
Cedarview MS
Glashan PS
Hawthorne PS
Henry Munro MS
John Young ES
Muntchmor PS
Grades
7-8
5-8
7-8
7-8
1-8
7-8
1-6
1-6
Congregated Gifted Early French Immersion
School
Grades
First Avenue PS
5-6
Greenbank MS
7-8
Henry Larsen ES
5-8
Hopewell Avenue PS
7-8
Knoxdale PS
5-6
Vincent Massey PS
5-8
Planning Division
C40
April 2007
Immersion and Extended French Certificate History
2003-2004 to 2005-2006
Immersion Certificates
Schools grant a certificate in French Immersion if the student has successfully completed the sequence of four courses in
French Immersion and a minimum of six courses in other subjects taught in French.
Extended French Certificates
Schools offering French Immersion will accommodate students opting for the Extended French Certificate. This
certificate will be granted to students by meeting the credit requirements for the Extended French Program.
Schools grant a certificate in Extended French if the student has successfully completed the sequence of four courses in
Extended French and a minimum of three courses in other subjects taught in French.
Immersion Certificates
School
A.Y. Jackson SS
Bell HS
Brookfield HS
Cairine Wilson SS
Canterbury HS
Colonel By SS
Earl of March SS
Glebe CI
Gloucester HS
Hillcrest HS
JS Woodsworth SS
John McCrae SS
Laurentian HS
Lisgar CI
Merivale HS
Nepean HS
Osgoode Township HS
Rideau HS
Ridgemont HS
Sir Robert Borden HS
Sir Wilfrid Laurier SS
South Carleton HS
West Carleton SS
Woodroffe HS
Total
Extended Certificates
2005-2006
2004-2005
2003-2004
2005-2006
2004-2005
2003-2004
28
22
25
41
20
14
27
32
27
18
26
21
7
1
6
0
10
1
52
44
55
47
14
69
27
61
52
16
42
28 *
72
29
8
18
27
0
16
12
10
46
37
24
5
37
12
82
4
37
0
3
3
7
35
18
23
4
3
7
27
31
23
9
560
31
47
11
3
29
16
8
15
9
4
20
8
3
8
20
4
8
3
**
16
18
3
4
0
25
6
2
2
211
149
180
22
76
16
6
0
11
26
34
8
0
492
**
5
38
10
8
9
502
Notes: * Includes number of French Immersion and Extended French Certificates awarded in 2004-2005.
** Number of certificates awarded in 2004-2005 not available.
2006-2007 Rideau High School no longer offers French Immerison courses.
Planning Division
C41
April 2007
Percentage of Immersion Students who Earn an Immersion or Extended Certificate
REVISED
Grade 8 Enrolment
EFI
MFI
LFI
Gifted EFI
Total
31-Oct-01
1256
56
444
72
1828
31-Oct-00
1306
45
430
67
1848
31-Oct-99
1310
50
493
68
1921
French Immersion and Extended French Certificates
Immersion
Extended
Total
2005-2006
560
211
771
2004-2005
502
149
651
2003-2004
492
180
672
Percentage of Grade 8 Immersion Students who Earn an Immersion or Extended Certificate
%
2005-2006
42.18%
2004-2005
35.23%
2003-2004
34.98%
Notes: 2004-2005 Gloucester HS Extended French Certificates awarded included in Immersion number.
2004-2005 Number of certificates awarded by Ridgemont HS not available.
Planning Division
C42
26 June 2007
Elementary Split Grade Classes
Five Year Summary 2002-2003 to 2006-2007
Split Classes
Total Classes
% Splits
2002-2003
362
2041
17.74%
2003-2004
397
2008
19.77%
2004-2005
403
2017
19.98%
2005-2006
369
2010
18.36%
2006-2007
439
2041
21.51%
Projected
2007-2008
568
2064
27.52%
2002-2003 Number of Split Grade Classes on 31 October 2002
Program
ENG
EFI
MFI
LFI
ALT
Total
JK/SK
63
15
78
SK/1
1
1
1/2
46
16
1/2/3
1
0
2/3
31
15
3/4
28
15
3/4/5
0
1
4/5
32
17
2
4/5/6
0
0
0
5/6
28
13
3
6/7/8
1
0
0
2
2
64
1
2
4
50
3
46
0
1
5
56
1
1
6
50
0
1
7/8
5
3
0
3
0
11
Total
Splits
236
81
5
3
37
362
Total
Classes
1364
547
28
34
68
2041
%
17.30%
14.81%
17.86%
8.82%
54.41%
17.74%
Total
Splits
251
92
7
2
45
397
Total
Classes
1316
557
32
33
70
2008
2003-2004 Number of Split Grade Classes on 31 October 2003
Program
ENG
EFI
MFI
LFI
ALT
Total
JK/SK
72
SK/1
1
1
1/2
35
16
1/2/3
1
0
2/3
34
20
3/4
34
20
3/4/5
0
2
4/5
41
14
2
4/5/6
0
0
0
5/6
29
16
5
6/7
0
0
0
6/7/8
1
0
0
16
88
0
2
5
56
1
2
5
59
5
59
0
2
5
62
1
1
7
57
0
0
0
1
7/8
3
3
0
2
0
8
7/8
5
7
2
3
0
17
Total
Splits
243
106
7
3
44
403
Total
Classes
1300
576
36
36
69
2017
%
19.07%
16.52%
21.88%
6.06%
64.29%
19.77%
2004-2005 Number of Split Grade Classes on 31 October 2004
Program
ENG
EFI
MFI
LFI
ALT
Total
Planning Division
JK/SK
70
S/1
0
1
1/2
39
20
1/2/3
0
0
2/3
31
28
3/4
25
16
4/5
34
16
1
4/5/6
0
1
0
5/6
38
16
4
6/7
1
1
0
13
83
0
1
5
64
1
1
6
65
3
44
7
58
1
2
8
66
0
2
C43
%
18.69%
18.40%
19.44%
8.33%
63.77%
19.98%
17 January 2007
Elementary Split Grade Classes
Five Year Summary 2002-2003 to 2006-2007
2005-2006 Number of Split Grade Classes on 31 October 2005
Program
ENG
EFI
MFI
LFI
ALT
Total
0
2
7/8
9
7
0
4
0
20
Total
Splits
226
96
3
4
40
369
Total
Classes
1273
596
38
37
66
2010
Total
Splits
267
114
6
6
46
439
Total
Classes
1257
642
40
38
64
2041
%
7/8
9
8
0
6
0
23
JK/SK
70
1/2
33
16
1/2/3
3
0
2/3
32
26
3/4
17
12
3/4/5
1
0
4/5
34
17
0
4/5/6
0
2
0
5/6
26
15
3
6/7
1
1
0
11
81
8
57
1
4
5
63
4
33
0
1
3
54
2
4
6
50
%
17.75%
16.11%
7.89%
10.81%
60.61%
18.36%
2006-2007 Number of Split Grade Classes on 31 October 2006
Program
ENG
EFI
MFI
LFI
ALT
Total
Planning Division
JK/SK
71
1/2
41
19
1/2/3
2
0
2/3
49
25
3/4
13
13
4/5
47
24
2
4/5/6
0
2
0
5/6
35
19
4
6/7
0
4
0
16
87
6
66
1
3
6
80
5
31
4
77
1
3
7
65
0
4
C44
21.24%
17.76%
15.00%
15.79%
71.88%
21.51%
17 January 2007
Ottawa-Carleton District School Board
Non-Exceptional Students with IEP by Program on 25 May 2007
ELEMENTARY
Program
Alternative
Early French Immersion
Middle French Immersion
Late French Immersion
Regular
Special Education
TOTAL
IEP
Students
105
130
16
9
1444
0
1704
Program
Enrolment
1,420
14,280
1,144
831
28,127
1,682
47,484
%
7.39%
0.91%
1.40%
1.08%
5.13%
0.00%
3.59%
IEP
Students
48
14
7
2
1
0
403
6
481
Program
Enrolment
700
803
625
84
25
475
20,436
1,287
24,435
%
6.86%
1.74%
1.12%
2.38%
4.00%
0.00%
1.97%
0.47%
18.54%
SECONDARY
Program
Adaptive
Arts
English as a Second Language
English Literacy Development
High Performance Athlete
International Baccalaueate
Regular
Special Education
TOTAL
Source: Data is reported as extracted from the Trillium Student Information System as at 25 May 2007.
Planning Division
C45
28 May 2007
Ottawa- Carleton District School Board
Number of IPRC'd Students by Program and Reported Exceptionality on 25 May 2007
ELEMENTARY
Reported Exceptionality
Giftedness
All Other Exceptionalites
1,420
IPRC'd
Program
Students
Enrolment % IPRC'd
29
2.04%
133
9.37%
162
1,420
11.41%
Reported Exceptionality
Giftedness
All Other Exceptionalites
14,280
IPRC'd
Program
Students
Enrolment % IPRC'd
310
2.17%
184
1.29%
494
14,280
3.46%
Reported Exceptionality
Giftedness
All Other Exceptionalites
1,144
IPRC'd
Program
Students
Enrolment % IPRC'd
69
6.03%
11
0.96%
80
1,144
6.99%
Reported Exceptionality
Giftedness
All Other Exceptionalites
831
IPRC'd
Program
Students
Enrolment % IPRC'd
42
5.05%
17
2.05%
59
831
7.10%
Program
Regular Program
Reported Exceptionality
Giftedness
All Other Exceptionalites
28,127
IPRC'd
Program
Students
Enrolment % IPRC'd
225
0.80%
3,074
10.93%
3,299
28,127
11.73%
Program
Special Education
Reported Exceptionality
Giftedness
All Other Exceptionalites
1,682
IPRC'd
Program
Students
Enrolment % IPRC'd
698
41.50%
964
57.31%
1,662
1,682
98.81%
Program
Alternative Program
Total
Program
Early French Immersion
Total
Program
Middle French Immersion
Total
Program
Late French Immersion
Total
Source: Data is reported as extracted from the Trillium Student Information System as at 25 May 2007.
Planning Division
C46
25 May 2007
Ottawa- Carleton District School Board
Number of IPRC'd Students by Program and Reported Exceptionality on 25 May 2007
SECONDARY
Program
Adaptive
Total
Program
Arts
Total
Program
English as a Second Language
Total
Program
English Literacy Development
Total
Program
High Performance Athlete
Total
Program
International Baccalaureate Program
Total
Program
Regular Program
Total
Program
Special Education
Total
Planning Division
Reported Exceptionality
Giftedness
All Other Exceptionalites
700
Reported Exceptionality
Giftedness
All Other Exceptionalites
803
Reported Exceptionality
Giftedness
All Other Exceptionalites
625
Reported Exceptionality
Giftedness
All Other Exceptionalites
84
Reported Exceptionality
Giftedness
All Other Exceptionalites
25
IPRC'd
Students
Program
Enrolment
0
517
517
% IPRC'd
0.00%
73.86%
700
73.86%
IPRC'd
Program
Students
Enrolment % IPRC'd
66
8.22%
45
5.60%
111
803
13.82%
IPRC'd
Students
Program
Enrolment
0
9
9
IPRC'd
Students
% IPRC'd
0.00%
1.44%
625
1.44%
Program
Enrolment
0
1
1
IPRC'd
Students
% IPRC'd
0.00%
1.19%
84
1.19%
Program
Enrolment
0
1
1
% IPRC'd
0.00%
4.00%
25
4.00%
Reported Exceptionality
Giftedness
All Other Exceptionalites
475
IPRC'd
Program
Students
Enrolment % IPRC'd
78
16.42%
3
0.63%
81
475
17.05%
Reported Exceptionality
Giftedness
All Other Exceptionalites
20,436
IPRC'd
Program
Students
Enrolment % IPRC'd
505
2.47%
2,187
10.70%
2,692
20,436
13.17%
Reported Exceptionality
Giftedness
All Other Exceptionalites
1,287
IPRC'd
Program
Students
Enrolment % IPRC'd
679
52.76%
547
42.50%
1226
1287
95.26%
C47
25 May 2007
Ottawa-Carleton District School Board
Number of Student Whose Mother Tongue is Not English and the Number of Students Whose Language Spoken at Home is Not English
Mother Tongue is Not English
Regular Program
Early French Immersion
Middle French Immerison
Late French Immersion
Alternative Program
Special Education Program Class
Total
25 May 2007 Enrolment
JK
976
SK
644
308
1
752
259
2
756
200
3
906
158
4
864
134
123
5
931
128
125
6
985
102
69
50
4
1,030
4,107
38
5
995
4,376
43
26
1,080
4,510
34
25
1,015
4,614
44
35
1,143
4,740
43
30
1,194
4,829
46
61
1,291
5,028
38
67
1,261
5,248
7
908
90
49
125
1
61
1,234
5,013
8
906
83
27
87
5
51
1,159
5,019
Program
TOTAL Enrolment
8,628
28,127
1,462
14,280
393
1,144
212
831
342
1,420
365
1,682
11,402
47,484
47,484
%
30.68%
10.24%
34.35%
25.51%
24.08%
21.70%
24.01%
% of Mother Tongue is Not English 25.08% 22.74% 23.95% 22.00% 24.11% 24.73% 25.68% 24.03% 24.62% 23.09% 24.01%
Language Spoken at Home is Not English
Regular Program
Early French Immersion
Middle French Immerison
Late French Immersion
Alternative Program
Special Education Program Class
JK
919
SK
587
317
1
751
286
2
757
222
3
888
186
4
866
153
121
5
908
147
125
6
952
124
68
45
4
968
4,107
33
5
942
4,376
38
26
1,101
4,510
30
25
1,034
4,614
45
35
1,154
4,740
41
30
1,211
4,829
43
61
1,284
5,028
35
67
1,246
5,248
7
890
102
49
127
1
61
1,230
5,013
8
875
91
29
96
5
51
1,147
5,019
Program
TOTAL Enrolment
8,393
28,127
1,628
14,280
392
1,144
223
831
316
1,420
365
1,682
11,317
47,484
47,484
Total
25 May 2007 Enrolment
% of Language Spoken at Home is Not
English
23.57% 21.53% 24.41% 22.41% 24.35% 25.08% 25.54% 23.74% 24.54% 22.85% 23.83%
%
29.84%
11.40%
34.27%
26.84%
22.25%
21.70%
23.83%
Note: Approximately 3500 students Language Name field in Trillium is blank, therefore
the number of students whose mother tongue or language spoken at home is not English may be even higher.
The data is as of 25 May 2007.
Planning Division
C48
28 May 2007
Ottawa-Carleton District School Board
Core Program Gender Summary
Preliminary 31 October 2006
Core Program Summary
JK
SK
F
2033
886
M
2030
1086
Total
4063
1972
Percentage by Grade
JK
F
50.04%
M
49.96%
Total
100.00%
SK
44.93%
55.07%
100.00%
l
1044
1194
2238
2
1142
1406
2548
3
1315
1643
2958
4
1274
1612
2886
5
1413
1631
3044
6
1576
1832
3408
7
1254
1652
2906
8
1330
1663
2993
l
46.65%
53.35%
100.00%
2
44.82%
55.18%
100.00%
3
44.46%
55.54%
100.00%
4
44.14%
55.86%
100.00%
5
46.42%
53.58%
100.00%
6
46.24%
53.76%
100.00%
7
43.15%
56.85%
100.00%
8
44.44%
55.56%
100.00%
Oct 06
11,234
13,719
24,953
%
45.02%
54.98%
100.00%
Note: 31 October 2006 Preliminary Enrolment
Planning Division
C49
31 May 2007
Ottawa-Carleton District School Board
Early French Immersion Gender Summary 2004-2006
Early French Immerison Summary
31 October 2004
SK
F
1113
M
1090
Total
2203
31 October 2005
SK
F
1110
M
1057
Total
2167
31 October 2006
SK
F
1245
M
1109
Total
2354
l
1093
920
2013
l
1125
1034
2159
l
1154
997
2151
2
943
756
1699
2
998
807
1805
2
1030
914
1944
3
888
728
1616
3
881
675
1556
3
913
730
1643
4
806
648
1454
4
843
685
1528
4
835
611
1446
5
718
550
1268
5
752
597
1349
5
770
648
1418
6
640
541
1181
6
706
524
1230
6
721
582
1303
7
649
507
1156
7
611
490
1101
7
674
490
1164
8
724
511
1235
8
642
495
1137
8
608
466
1074
l
54.30%
45.70%
100.00%
l
52.11%
47.89%
100.00%
l
53.65%
46.35%
100.00%
2
55.50%
44.50%
100.00%
2
55.29%
44.71%
100.00%
2
52.98%
47.02%
100.00%
3
54.95%
45.05%
100.00%
3
56.62%
43.38%
100.00%
3
55.57%
44.43%
100.00%
4
55.43%
44.57%
100.00%
4
55.17%
44.83%
100.00%
4
57.75%
42.25%
100.00%
5
56.62%
43.38%
100.00%
5
55.74%
44.26%
100.00%
5
54.30%
45.70%
100.00%
6
54.19%
45.81%
100.00%
6
57.40%
42.60%
100.00%
6
55.33%
44.67%
100.00%
7
56.14%
43.86%
100.00%
7
55.50%
44.50%
100.00%
7
57.90%
42.10%
100.00%
8
58.62%
41.38%
100.00%
8
56.46%
43.54%
100.00%
8
56.61%
43.39%
100.00%
Oct 04
7,574
6,251
13,825
Oct 05
7,668
6,364
14,032
Oct 06
7,950
6,547
14,497
%
54.78%
45.22%
100.00%
%
54.65%
45.35%
100.00%
%
54.84%
45.16%
100.00%
3 Year Average
%
F
54.76%
M
45.24%
Total
100.00%
Percentage by Grade
31 October 2004
F
M
Total
31 October 2005
F
M
Total
31 October 2006
F
M
Total
Planning Division
SK
50.52%
49.48%
100.00%
SK
51.22%
48.78%
100.00%
SK
52.89%
47.11%
100.00%
C50
30 May 2007
Ottawa-Carleton District School Board
Middle French Immersion Gender Summary 2004-2006
Middle French Immerison Summary
31 October 2004
4
174
F
124
M
298
Total
31 October 2005
4
178
F
167
M
345
Total
31 October 2006
4
191
F
136
M
327
Total
5
110
86
196
5
152
112
264
5
156
133
289
6
97
51
148
6
92
80
172
6
148
108
256
7
97
66
163
7
93
50
143
7
84
73
157
8
57
43
100
8
89
66
155
8
87
49
136
5
56.12%
43.88%
100.00%
5
57.58%
42.42%
100.00%
5
53.98%
46.02%
100.00%
6
65.54%
34.46%
100.00%
6
53.49%
46.51%
100.00%
6
57.81%
42.19%
100.00%
7
59.51%
40.49%
100.00%
7
65.03%
34.97%
100.00%
7
53.50%
46.50%
100.00%
8
57.00%
43.00%
100.00%
8
57.42%
42.58%
100.00%
8
63.97%
36.03%
100.00%
Oct 04
535
370
905
Oct 05
604
475
1079
Oct 06
666
499
1165
%
59.12%
40.88%
100.00%
%
55.98%
44.02%
100.00%
%
57.17%
42.83%
100.00%
3 Year Average
%
57.42%
F
42.58%
M
100.00%
Total
Percentage by Grade
31 October 2004
F
M
Total
31 October 2005
F
M
Total
31 October 2006
F
M
Total
4
58.39%
41.61%
100.00%
4
51.59%
48.41%
100.00%
4
58.41%
41.59%
100.00%
Note: 31 October 2006 Preliminary Enrolment
Planning Division
C51
8 May 2007
Ottawa-Carleton District School Board
Late French Immersion Gender Summary 2004-2006
Late French Immersion Summary
31 October 2004
F
M
Total
31 October 2005
F
M
Total
31 October 2006
F
M
Total
Percentage by Grade
31 October 2004
F
M
Total
31 October 2005
F
M
Total
31 October 2006
F
M
Total
7
261
206
467
7
264
170
434
7
288
163
451
8
226
178
404
8
240
182
422
8
256
157
413
7
55.89%
44.11%
100.00%
7
57.63%
42.37%
100.00%
7
60.83%
39.17%
100.00%
8
55.94%
44.06%
100.00%
8
56.82%
43.18%
100.00%
8
56.87%
43.13%
100.00%
Oct 04
487
384
871
Oct 05
504
352
856
Oct 06
544
320
864
%
55.91%
44.09%
100.00%
%
58.88%
41.12%
100.00%
%
62.96%
37.04%
100.00%
3 Year Average
%
59.25%
F
40.75%
M
100.00%
Total
Note: 31 October 2006 Preliminary Enrolment
Planning Division
C52
8 May 2007