2/24/2015 - Regular Board MeetingTHAMES VALLEY DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD
REGULAR MEETING
2015 FEBRUARY. 24, 7:00 P.M. .
BOARD ROOM,, EDUCATION CENTRE
The Board met in regular session on 2015 February 24 in the Board Room at the Education Centre,
meeting in public session at 7:00 p.m. The following were in attendance:
TRUSTEES
ADMINISTRATION AND OTHERS
R. Tisdale (Chair)
E. Muellejans
L. Elliott
B. Williams
C. Goodall
G. Osih
K. Dalton
K. Young
G. Hart
S. Polhill
J. Pratt
K. Aitken
B. McKinnon
M. Reid
C. Beal
A. Morell
P. Schuyler
R. Culhane
Guests:
J. Skinner
M. Deman
J. Tozer (-8:08)
Regrets:
L. Griffith -Jones .
S. Bruyns (-9:16)
J. Bennett
D. Macpherson
P. Sydor (-9:16)
R. Campbell
P. McKenzie
S. Killip (-9:16)
P. Jaffe
M. Moynihan
S. Folino (-9:16)
J. Todd
V. Nielsen
J. Moodie (-9:16)
S. Powell
D. Smith (-9:16)
B. Sonier
1. CALL TO ORDER
Board Chair R. Tisdale called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
2. /3.0 CANADA
The appreciation of the Board was extended to Sir Frederick Banting Secondary School Chamber
Choir for their performance and to Conductor Kristen Darsault for leading in the singing of 0 Canada
and performing two musical selections.
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
The agenda was approved on motion of M. Reid, seconded by A. Morell.
5. OFFICIAL RECORD — none
6. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST - none declared
7. CHAIR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS — none
8.' DIRECTOR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS
Director L. Elliott announced the.. appointment of. Superintendent Valerie Nielsen to the position of
Associate' Director effective September 1., 2015.
Director Elliott referred to the Ontario Health and Physical Education Curriculum released by the
Ministry of Education on February 23. Supt. D. Macpherson highlighted common themes in the
document. He noted that professional development opportunities will be offered by the Ministry of
Education in the spring. The Board also will offer training and support for principals, vice -principals
and teachers.
Director Elliott, Associate Director J.. Pratt and Supt. S. Powell provided Trustees with an update
regarding the Bishop Townshend/Lorne Avenue consolidated school capital project.
It was noted that the Board is awaiting confirmation of funding from the Ministry of Education .to move
forward. The funding announcement is expected within the next month.
In consideration of the delay in construction, students in the higher grades will be accommodated at
Lorne Avenue Public School. Otherwise the Bishop Townshend site can accommodate students
during the construction and renovations process. The goal in. the planning is to minimize transition for
all students. Once the funding is announced, the construction timeline will be developed and details
regarding student accommodations will- be forthcoming. Administration recognized the need for
parents to have information as soon as possible. The Board is committed to providing regular
updates to parents. The next update will be made at the 2015 March 31 Board meeting.
9. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS
a. Hiring Practices
Supt. L. Griffith -Jones reported on Elementary Teacher Hiring Processes including Occasional
and Long -Term Occasional contract teaching positions. She was joined by Staffing Manager J.
Tozer.
Regulation 274 of the Education Act provides new hiring practices. To apply to the Long -Term
Occasional Teacher list, an Occasional Teacher must have worked 10 months with TVDSB and
completed 20 days of teaching.
10. MINUTES OF THE 2015 FEBRUARY 10 BOARD MEETING
a. Confirmation of Minutes
The minutes of the Regular Board Meeting of 2015 February 10 was adopted on motion of
C. Goodall, seconded by P. Schuyler.
b. Business Arising from the Minutes - none
111. STUDENT TRUSTEES' UPDATE
Student Trustee G. Osih noted that a Volunteer Fair has been planned following the Student Advisory
Council meeting on March 26.
Student Trustees Osih and E. Muellejans will attend the Ontario Student Trustees' Association Board
Council Conference on February 26 to March 1 in Ottawa..
Student Trustee Muellejans highlighted topics discussed at the Student Advisory Council meeting on
February 19.
12. REPORTS FROM THE ADMINISTRATION
a. French Immersion Program Review
Supt. V. Nielsen provided. Trustees with a high-level overview of French Immersion programming
within Thames Valley. (Item 12.a) She was joined by Manager S. Killip, Principal P. Sydor,
Learning Supervisor S. Bruyns, Research and Assessment Associate S. Folino, Learning
Coordinator D. Smith and J. Moodie, teacher.
Background information was provided regarding the purpose of the review. The framework for
the review was described. Information was provided on the national and provincial context;
student enrolment statistics; the resources available to teachers and parents through learning
coordinators; student outcomes and retention rates; stakeholder feedback from students, parents
and staff; and future considerations.
b.. Naming of the New Tillsonburg School
Supt. S. Powell presented a report regarding the naming of the new Tillsonburg school scheduled
to open September 2015.
The following recommendation was moved by S. Polhill, seconded by G. Hart and CARRIED:
That the new Tillsonburg School be named Westfield Public School.
c. Membership of the Naming Committee for the Consolidated Bishop Townshend/Lorne
Avenue Public School
Supt. Powell presented a report regarding the names of individuals who agreed to participate in
the process to name the consolidated Bishop Townshend/Lorne Avenue Public School. (Item
12.c)
The following recommendatiori was moved by M. Reid, seconded as C. Goodall and CARRIED:
That the Naming Committee membership for the consolidated Bishop
Townshend/Lorne Avenue Public School be approved.
d. West Elgin Senior Elementary School Grade 8 Program for 2015-2016
Supt. Powell referred to the report regarding the Grade 8 Program for West Elgin Senior
Elementary School for 2015-2016. (Item 12.d) As a result of the survey, current Grade 7 students
will remain at West Elgin Senior Elementary School for their Grade 8 year in 2015-2016.
13. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
a. Report of the Special Education Advisory Committee, 2015 February 3
Trustee C. Goodall referred to the written report of the Special Education Advisory Committee
(Item 13.a) and provided to Trustees in advance of the meeting. There were no
recommendations.
b. Report of the Transportation Advisory Committee, 2015 February 10
Chair Tisdale referred to the written report of the Transportation Advisory Committee (Item 13.b)
and provided to Trustees in advance of the meeting. There were no recommendations.
c. Report of the Thames Valley Parent Involvement Committee, 2015 February 12
Chair Tisdale referred to the written report of the Thames Valley Parent Involvement Committee
(Item 13.c) and provided to Trustees in advance of the meeting. There were no
recommendations.
d. Report of the Chair's Committee, 2015 February 7
Trustee B. McKinnon referred to the written report of the Chair's Committee (Item 13.d) and
provided to Trustees in advance of the meeting. The following recommendation was moved by
B. McKinnon, seconded by J. Skinner and CARRIED:
That Trustees P. Jaffe and M. Reid be appointed to the Naming Committee
Membership for the consolidated Bishop Townshend/Lorne Avenue Public School.
e. Report of the Committee of the Whole — In Camera, 2015 February 25
Trustee B. McKinnon advised that the committee met in -camera from 5:00 p.m. to 6:15 p.m. and
from 10:13 p.m. to 10:22 p.m. The committee discussed confidential legal, negotiation and
personal matters. The following recommendation was moved by J. Skinner, seconded by M.
Reid and CARRIED:
That the motion relating to legal and personal matters be approved.
14. COMMUNICATIONS
a. ONTARIO PUBLIC SCHOOL BOARDS' ASSOCIATION (OPSBA) UPDATE
Trustee G. Hart advised that the Education Labour Relations and Human Resources Symposium
will be held on March 26 to 28. The western region meeting will be held at The Education Centre
on April 11.
15. NOTICE OF MOTION
Trustee M. Reid presented the following motion for consideration:
BE IT RESOLVED: That the Thames Valley District School Board ask the Chair to write the London
Transit Commission and Mayor of the City of London requesting that the London Transit Commission
explore the possibility of an affordable monthly or semester bus pass for elementary and secondary
school students.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the Thames Valley District School Board request the topic of an
affordable monthly or semester bus pass for elementary and secondary school students be made a.
topic at the next TVDSB/City of London Liaison Committee meeting.
16. MOTION — NOTICE OF WHICH HAS BEEN GIVEN — none
'17. ADDITIONAL ITEMS
Trustee J. Skinner presented_ a motion .requesting a report from Administration comparing the
associated costs and benefits,of various options .relating to the accommodation of students during
construction at the Bishop Townshend Public School -site. The motion was seconded by Trustee
Reid.
Discussion considered the value of such a report. Director Elliott assured Trustees that an update will
be provided on March 31 with as much detail as possible including the rationale for plan.
Trustee Skinner withdrew the motion.
18. QUESTIONS/COMMENTS BY MEMBERS — none
The committee recessed at -10:0-5 p.m. It reconvened. in -cam era at 10:13 p.m. It reconvened in public
session at 10:22 p.m.
19. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 10:23 p.m. on motion of J. Skinner, seconded* by M. Reid..
Confirmed:
Chairperson
SUMMARY OF APPROVED RECOMMENDATIONS OF 2015 FEBRUARY 24
- That the new Tillsonburg School be named Westfield Public School.
- That the Naming Committee membership for the consolidated Bishop Townshend/Lorne Avenue
.Public.School be approved/
- That the motion relating to legal and personal matters be approved.
- That Trustees P. Jaffe and M. Reid be appointed to the Naming Committee Membership for the
consolidated Bishop Townshend/Lorne Avenue Public School.
:y r
V( TRter secMOa own
REPORT TO: BOARD
X❑ .Public ❑ In Camera
COMMITTEE ❑ Public ❑ In Camera
PRESENTED FOR INFORMATION
SUBMITTED BY: Valerie Nielsen, Superintendent of Student SIGNATURE:
Achievement
SUBJECT. Frerich'if
rimersion Program Review
Date of 2015 February 24
Meeting:
Item #: 12.a
Purpose To share the work of the French Immersion Program Review with Trustees.
Content Following the system -wide accommodation review of the French Immersion program in 2013-14, we felt it
would also be timely to also review the French Immersion program offerings. While it is a popular, growing
program it is always important to review what is currently occurring, and explore any possible improvements.
The overall purpose of the review was to address the broad question — does the French Immersion program in
NDSB address the academic and experiential needs of'students and their families? To address this broad
question, and to provide considerations for future programming within the FI program, the review developed a
scope and framework that included the following objectives:
1. To provide a context for the TVDSB French Immersion program by describing how FI is organized and
implemented at the National and Provincial levels
2. To describe the FI experience in Thames Valley by detailing enrollment, location, course offerings and
achievement
3. To collect and assess stakeholder perspectives of FI in order to gain insight on the experiences of
participants, including students, parents and staff
A number of considerationsare included at the end of the report.
The information shared within this program review will be used to guide and inform decision-making in regards
to future French Immersion programming in TVDSB.
Cost/Savings
Timeline
Appendices French Immersion Program Review
Relation to Commitments:
❑x Putting students first.
❑ Recognizing and encouraging leadership in all its forms.
❑x Actively engaging our students, staff, families and communities.
❑x Being inclusive, fair, and equitable.
0 Ensuring safe, positive learning and working environments. x❑ Inspiring new ideas and promoting innovation.
❑x Taking responsibility for the students and resources entrusted to our care.
4
1. Program Review Team
2. Introduction
:3. Purpose of the Review
.4. French Immersion at the National and Provincial Levels
.5. French Immersion in Thames Valley
Program Offerings
Learning Support and Resources
Student Achievement
Retention Rates
6. Stakeholder Perspectives
Student Perspectives
Parent Perspectives
Staff Perspectives
7. Considerations for Future French Immersion Programming
8. References
9. Appendices
A: English School Boards in Ontario — FSL Entry Points and Delivery Methods
B: Retention Rates
C: Staff Interviews
Program Review Team
Erin Balmer — FSL Learning Coordinator (Retired)
Susan Bruyns — Learning Supervisor; Languages Portfolio
Sarah Folino — Research and Assessment Associate
Steve Killip — Manager - Research and, Assessment Services
Jennifer Moodie — FSL Teacher on Special Assignment
Deborah Smith — FSL Learning Coordinator
Paul Sydor — Secondary Principal at Parkside Collegiate Institute
Valerie Nielsen — Superintendent of Student Achievement with French as a Second Language
Portfolio
Introduction
French as a Second Language (FSL) is available in two formats. Core French is mandatory for
all students beginning in Grade 4 and French Immersion is an optional program with more
extensive instruction in French. French � Immersion is a growing program in. Thames Valley
District School Board (TVDSB). Offered for the first time in 1970 (in the former Elgin County
Board) and in 1982 (in the former London Board), there are now approximately 4,723 students
in- French Immersion, from. Senior Kindergarten to Grade 8, and 977 students in Grades 9-12.
There are currently ten elementary schools and five secondary schools offering French
Immersion programming in single-track or dual -track (schools that offer instruction in both
English and French) formats. The data generated in the review reflects eleven elementary
schools, with. two schools being consolidated into one school in the fall of 2014. Students may
enter French Immersion in either Senior Kindergarten or Grade 1. In addition, the Extended
French Immersion program offers students entry in Grade 7.
As highlighted in the 2014 Director's Annual Report, in order to meet growth projections and
prepare for the future, a complete, system -wide look at French Immersion accommodation
occurred in 2014, based on the following factors:
- Putting student needs first so that French Immersion programming can continue to be
.offered as a program choice to all TVDSB students in a sustainable manner
- Restructuring of attendance areas to harmonize enrolment with school capacity
- Using Full Day Kindergarten funding to ensure that available resources are maximized
for students
Following this review of the accommodation components of the program, it was determined to
review the actual French Immersion Program. While it is a popular, growing program, it is
always important to review what is currently occurring, and explore any possible improvements.
11 Page
This review focuses on the implementation of the Ontario curriculum and the TVDSB French
Immersion program for students and families. This review is not about the actual French
Immersion curriculum, as that is mandated for all French Immersion schools in Ontario by the
Ministry of Education. In 2013, the Ministry of Education revised the elementary curriculum and
in 2014 the secondary curriculum was revised. Both revised curriculum documents incorporate
changes in approaches, from passive acquisition to active interaction, from grammar -based to
literacy -based instruction with language -rich opportunities, and from isolated concepts to
contextualized learning.
The information shared within this program review will be used to guide and inform -decision
making in regards to French Immersion programming within TVDSB.
Purpose of the Review
The overall purpose of the review was to address the following question:
Does the French Immersion program in TVDSB address the academic and experiential needs
-of students and their families?
-To address this broad question, and to provide considerations for future programming within the
French Immersion program, the review developed a scope and framework that included the
following objectives:
1. to provide a context for the TVDSB French Immersion program by describing how
French Immersion is organized and implemented at the National and Provincial levels;
2. to describe the French Immersion experience in Thames Valley by detailing enrollment,
location, course offerings,. program support and achievement;
3. to collect and assess stakeholder perspectives of French Immersion in order to gain
insight on the experiences of participants including students, parents and staff.
To address these objectives a broad, multi -faceted program review was undertaken. Evidence
was obtained through interviews, surveys, document analysis, and a review of student data in
order to address current and future needs. Perspectives of those currently in the program were
considered, as well as those who are no longer in the program:
French Immersion at the -National and Provincial Levels
In order to situate the French Immersion program in Thames Valley, an overview of French
Immersion program offerings both nationally and provincially has been collated using
information from Canadian Parents for Education.
The following timeline provides a chronology of events related to the development and
establishment of French as a Second Language in Canadian schools.
Chronology of French as a Second Language in Canada
1961. The Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism is established.
1965.- French immersion begins as a pilot program in one school in St. Lambert, Quebec.
1913.E bilingualism becomes Federal government policy when the Official Languages Act is passed by the
Parliament of Canada, :according equality GF, status to English and French in government and the
Parliament of Canada.
1970: The Of cia I La nguages i n Ed ucation Progra m (OLEP) is created by federa I Depa rtm en t of the
Secretary Gf State (noir C=anadian Fleritagek first federal -provincial agreements on minority -language
education and second -language instruction are signed.
1977-. Canadian parents For French is founded by Anglophone parents who Irish to increase :student
success in FSL education, Cess than 40,GGG students are enrolled in French -immersion programs in
Canada..
1983: The first Protocol on teaching afficial languages is signed with provinciaI :and territariaI
governments in conjunction with the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada (CMEiC) and the
Department of C=anadian Heritage -
1 M& A new Of icial Languages Act is passed by the Parliament of C=a nada, reflecting the Charter of
Rights and Freedoms and reinforcing the role of the C=ommissioner of Of i:cial Languages..
2000� A new Protocol is signed by federal, provincial, and territorial governments, including guaranteethat provinces and territories will provide fiction Plans on the use of funds,
2 The Stateof French -Second -Language Education in Canada 2000, the first in a series of annua
reports by Canadian Parents for French, is published. Nearly 2 -million Canadian students are studying
French as a second language in core/basic or immersion programs. Of the 2 million ,students, there are
318,000 students enrolled in French immersion programs.
201 The Speech from the Throne opening the 37th session of Parliament states thatCanada's linguistic
duality is fundamental to our Canadian identity .and is a key element of our vibrant society..
1< Hon. St6phane Dion, President of the Queen's Priory Council for Canada and Minister- of
Intergovernmental Af€airs, is appointed by Prime M-1nister Jean C_hrkien to tale a leading role in
coordinating official language initiatives for the federal government..
20M.- Canada's Action Plarr for Offidal Languages is released.
fig: The Roadmap for Canada's Inguls6cDuality is released as a follow-up to the 2003 Action Plan,
which expired in 2CG8.
Source: Provincial and Territorial Ministries of Education as reflected in Canadian Parents for Education - French as a Second
Language Enrolment Statistics 2008- 2009 - 2012-2013
3 1 P a g e
Student Enrollment in French as a Second Language in Canada
In 1977, the year Canadian Parents for French was founded, there were fewer than 40,000
students enrolled in French Immersion programs. Today more than 309,000 students are
enrolled in French Immersion programs across Canada. Nearly 1,578,000 students are enrolled
in core/basic programs across Canada.
In all, over 1,890,000 Canadian students are studying French through the core/basic or
immersion programs.
2012-2013 French Immersion Enrolment by Province/Territory and Grade Source: Ministries of Education
E3.. ._':i i ,, #1 1Ug .i�'i'"fir' . t tl s1Gf ,"-.. .iii rxi5•'(`#1 _ . i 5fi}€...r'.t i ltt5
1K
n
% .e° tR mac_. i R
164, 11., ii1,946,437
i.Ss
_. -a
6,559
s--��
i
6,559
-SK;;,..., . 4;554 4,657" 2;466
_ _
67fl 1;150
; i;
1570
14` C9I < °.31752".
353
. <
6.7
33,295
1 4,412 :4,607
2,419
ryrcmwri•rma:.:a•xm�vaw.k"j,�..,n:;",
707
1,090
107
22,361
367
3,590
1,400
41,059
' ..
,� ' • 2:
5.�8
p•i 5'..J',Y�. }_3. ., ��
�'"1.7`-
-.ff'l: '1-.ij-•p',F,.wT
='3:.a`]-•
3 3,433 3,783
2,020
1,804
567
910
53
16,86_9
306
3,501
1,055
34,300
N3,259' ' . 3,q! ::
_ 1,$03;.
.. '.1,617 , `,
-. ,568 °; ;1,043
_ 74
. 1/,235
307,
', 3,3961'
.1m050' _ ;:.34,056
-
5 2,901 3,510
11696
1,407
542
835
49
15,747
241
3,441
857
31,226
M_..,_ a. � _ �>x _• 2624 1
1.574,'.. . 2.3#' '
X54 '< '&14
rw• 43_
:113,551.._
7 2,978 4,472
1,476
2,167
1,027
2,013
46
12,570
464
2,590
820
30,623
$ . '. •: 2844-2125
_,,.M_.._ ...
11?41._:
AY6,
9 2,449 3,149
1,174
2,020
867
1582
40
7,614
400
2,429
578
22,302
mow..:....._. ., 'i��,3,6_57. �"'��399- '=1,074
4 :>1a764 �.712``.w�31,IRD
.. ... ;2�:.
,r
� � �� _.. 5�60
_ 385
• M.1;997
_
491�,:._
_ 19,262
11 1,589 2,476
980
1,576
686
985
20
5,421
319
1,956
484
16,493
989e
:' "'-1,317 .:
518;
a:. rn -844:
25 ^ :. -r ... .u..;4,ti3
277::
`.69'a.;;;
..
12,24
OTHER 1.
1
'T AL _ ': ;.38,2&5" :.' 47,849`:
; , . 21,21,4
; : ; 18,111 .:-'
• ° 9,118 ";
', ` i5,31U `
:,-'_ .. ,; 648,
. >: ' -. 274,895" ,
- .3,391
'` 36 ,4$9
11,52$. ; , -
'377,939
TOTAL ENROLMENT 577,351 564,532
181,734
101,079
67,604
123,106
SA99
2,031,195
20,406
N/A
168,442
3,843,848
:.._.;., 6,5 ,..,.:.
„ '*F CM%OFTE `,, 8.5
M;Ei
117
` ==;017.9,'1.
2:4
.-8.3..
;..:. .. ;` 8:6 '
_ 21.5
N /.
68,.
6BLEENROL 571,051 559,789
176,337
7.1,955
67,256
118,212
8,179.
1,932,498
19,577
99,850
166,982
3,791,685
77 ESL AS %OF EE .. ; y 6.7' ,: fs' '8:6.: n::; _ 22.0:-
.:`„ `25.2:
13.6....
• "° .13.0 '..-9,5'--77777777�
.>: �.. 9.1=.:
:22.rs
s. � i+ � 1 J:: i 7k � : r • R
4 �f
1312 b7 7 .a, X1.5 1 12 is ?.. ii a, 5 1a.t],
n
% .e° tR mac_. i R
164, 11., ii1,946,437
i.Ss
_. -a
- .
s--��
i
2009-2-010 ;
2011-2412 6,6 #
$. d9.& 24,2 13.3
i 12.6
8.1 i
n/a
i 8.5 21.7 36.2 i
6.7
ryrcmwri•rma:.:a•xm�vaw.k"j,�..,n:;",
':-,x..=+-.x."..e�>�a�a•$
�ra �,en•
z:-.,z'�;c».vc,,,.s.i�:m.-. .,..new a`?,.....x..x�w.<em.a.
2009-2010 59 R
:d.>'«;.«:«w<,...p:•. -..< .»..... .,, o-rNwaA.,zix•:,v.d'::''d'�-•�..sn-,"ne,,,:
7.6 F 149 C 227 12.1
? 11.9
•,. m,aH.;ne:aze•.t
I 7.7 ±
n/a
.rnx,,�sxe3x.wxh pa::.
1 ' 214 ; 385;;.6 1
5.�8
p•i 5'..J',Y�. }_3. ., ��
�'"1.7`-
-.ff'l: '1-.ij-•p',F,.wT
.�7„4qq
r '"2`�u'. '.'�'^Qwt wx.. .-
='3:.a`]-•
..=Y'd•,i,•+5 3
1. Includes Early, Middle, Late and 50/50 immersion programs
1011-20,12501.
.S ; 1. t 5,
164, 11., ii1,946,437
_. -a
= , •,�«�
s--��
�.;,,�; .; - r*x, ,,; Via;
2009-2-010 ;
49.8
7.44.2.4 ; 980,532:
146,428 : 53.x,782 ;
1.9681414
1. Includes all French Immersion and core French programs
2. Includes Early, Middle and Late French Immersion programs
3. Includes Regular, Extended and Expanded Core French, Intensive French, Post -Intensive French, and Enriched French
programs
Source: Provincial and Territorial Ministries of Education as reflected in Canadian Parents for Education - French as a
Second Language Enrolment Statistics 2008- 2009 - 2012-2013.
As the data show, enrollment in French Immersion, programs throughout both Canada and
Ontario have continued to increase over time.
The Ontario Ministry of Education mandates the content of the curriculum as well as the
minimum requirements of French instructional time within French Immersion programs.
Excerpt from: The Ontario Curriculum: French as a Second Language: Core, Grades 4-8;
Extended, Grades 4-8; Immersion, Grades 1-8, 2013 (page 15)
"In a French Immersion program, French must be the language of instruction for a minimum of 50 per cent of the total
instructional time at every grade level of the program and provide a minimum of 3800 hours of instruction in French
by the end of Grade 8. French Immersion programs must include the study of French as a second language and the
study of at least two other subjects taught in French. These two subjects must be selected from the following: 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. Although the French Immersion curriculum is written for a Grade 1 start, many
immersion programs starting in Grade 1 provide instruction in French in all subjects (i.e., for 100 per cent of total
instructional time) until Grade 3 or 4, when students begin to study English.5 Instruction in English may then be
gradually extended to include other subjects. By the end of Grade 8, students may receive up to 50 per cent of their
instruction in English. School boards may choose to start an Extended French or French Immersion program at
various grade levels. Regardless of the grade in which these programs begin, all boards must ensure that the policy
and program requirements described above are met and that students enrolled in these programs are given the
opportunity to achieve all of the expectations outlined in this document for the relevant program. Administrative teams
can also consider ways of supporting students in making use of their knowledge of French outside the classroom.
For subjects other than FSL that are taught in French in an Extended French or French Immersion program the
expectations in each grade are those outlined in the English language curriculum policy documents. It is recognized
that expectations in these subjects may_need to be adapted to meet the needs. of students who are studying the
subjects in French instead of in English. In any program of study, students should advance through an organized
sequence of learning experiences that permits a steady accumulation of knowledge and skills. Therefore, once,
students embark on an instructional sequence in Core French, Extended French, or French Immersion, they must be
given -the opportunity to continue in an uninterrupted program to Grade 8..
The elementary school curriculum for Core French, Extended French, and French Immersion is designed to prepare
students for success in the corresponding, program at the secondary level. The expectations that form the basis of the
secondary school curriculum build on the knowledge and skills that students acquire in their elementary programs."
Excerpt from: The Ontario Curriculum, Grades 9 to 12: French As a Second Language — Core,
Extended, and Immersion French, 2014 (revised)
French Immersion. Students are taught French as a subject, and French serves as the language of instruction in two
or more other subjects. At the secondary level, there are academic and applied courses in French Immersion in
Grades 9 and 10, and university preparation and open courses in Grades 11 and 12. In the French Immersion
program, students accumulate ten credits in French: four are for FSL courses; six are for other subjects in which
French is the language of instruction. Schools may grant a certificate in French Immersion if the student fulfils these
requirements.
5 1 P a g e
The following table presents Elementary Entry Points and Percentage of Instruction in French
for a selection of School Boards in Ontario. The data reflected is a combination of information
obtained from School Board representatives and websites.
Avon Maitland
Bluewater JK JK - Gr. 3 — 100%
As the data show, school boards throughout Ontario offer entry points at the Junior
Kindergarten, Senior Kindergarten and Grade 1 level. Most school boards provide 50% of
instruction in French and 50% of instruction in English by Grade 7 and Grade 8. Additionally,
Appendix A incorporates a province wide overview of FSL entry points and delivery methods, as
provided by the Ontario Modern Language Teachers Association.
Gr. 4-8-50%
Durham
Gr. 1
Gr. 1 - 3 — 100%
Gr. 4 - 8 — 50%
Grand Erie
SK
JK, SK and Gr. 1 — 100%
By the end of Gr. 8 — 50%
Greater Essex
JK, SK and Gr. 1
JK, SK and Gr. 1 — 100%
Gr. 2 - 5 — 75%
Gr. 6-8.50%
Halton
Gr. 1 and Gr. 7 extended
All Grades 50%
Hamilton Wentworth
Gr. 1
Gr 1 - 5 — 85-100%
Gr. 6 - 8 — 50-60%
Lambton Kent
JK
JK - 3 — 100%
Gr. 4-8-50%
Limestone
JK, SK and Gr.1 and Gr. 7 extended
JK - Gr. 2 — 100%
Gr. 3 -.6 — 50%
Gr. 7 - 8 — 70%
London District Catholic
JK, SK and 1
JK and SK — 90%
Gr. 1 - 8 — 80%
Niagara
I Gr. 1
I All Grades 80-85%
Peel
I Gr. 1 and Gr. 7 extended
I All Grades 50%
Simcoe
Gr. 1 and Gr. 5 extended
Gr 1 - 2 — 100%
Gr. 3 - 8 —50%
Thames Valley
I SK, Gr. 1 and extended Gr. 7
I All Grades 70%
Toronto
SK
SK - 3 — 100%
GrA - 8 -x 50%
Waterloo
Gr. 1 and extended Gr. 7
Gr 1 - Gr 6 — 50%
Gr. 7-8-35/a0/
Waterloo Catholic
Gr. 1
Gr.1 - 6 — 50%
Gr. 7-8--35%
York
I Gr. 1
I Gr.1 - 3 — 100%
Gr. 4-8-50%
As the data show, school boards throughout Ontario offer entry points at the Junior
Kindergarten, Senior Kindergarten and Grade 1 level. Most school boards provide 50% of
instruction in French and 50% of instruction in English by Grade 7 and Grade 8. Additionally,
Appendix A incorporates a province wide overview of FSL entry points and delivery methods, as
provided by the Ontario Modern Language Teachers Association.
French Immersion in Thames Valley
Program Offerings
Elementary Instruction
The French -as a Second Language Immersion and Extended Elementary — Independent
Procedure for Thames Valley District School Board guides the percentage of instruction in
French for French Immersion subject areas.
"A minimum of 70% of classroom instruction must be conducted in French with a maximum of 30% of classroom
instruction conducted in English. A minimum of 20% must be dedicated to the instruction of English Language Arts.
Classroom instruction in French shall include: Mathematics, Social Studies, History/Geography, Science and French
Language Arts. Classroom instruction in English shall include English Language Arts (20%) and any subjects not
mentioned in 2.3 (Mathematics, Social Studies, History/Geography, Science and French Language Arts) (10%). The
total percentage of classroom instruction in English shall not exceed 30 per cent and is dependent upon qualifications
of school staff, resources, school organization, etc."
Elementary Entry Points
Early Immersion entry points are at Senior Kindergarten and Grade 1, while the entry point for
Extended French Immersion is Grade 7. The entry criteria, along with exceptions to this policy,
are specified in The French as a Second Language Immersion and Extended Elementary
Independent Procedure for Thames Valley District School Board as noted below. -
"Except where proficiency warrants, entry into the program will begin in September of Senior Kindergarten or Grade
1. Proficiency for those wishing to enter after October 31 of Grade One will be determined by the principal upon
consideration of the results of a FIAT (French Immersion Achievement Test). The FIAT will be administered by the
French Immersion Learning Coordinator. Results will be shared.with both parent and principal, following which the
principal will determine placement."
The following chart displays the enrollment for Thames Valley students in French Immersion
programs from 2002 — 2014.
_ k,.0
School ; r:
X, E e ienta
;�,�>" c.�
Immecs�on.
iwts
. s's �'.'�:5>�"�. ';i.7`4 � f n-?.h>`r�d� 99��mm .L'2a � s -E'3 e4 #'�k
iSeconda )m riecsion ..r secon+�a
'°'.: +...
:'�... : M p+,3'
,-�Imm rsign,,
Y
.+:'
il�;,
�EK,:':
" :lx
>r?'. ; y.. c .a'!.€. a ;-`>; .•,.w.•-.' ;&
„w'2:' Sy'X'$, S,q,$py'.-, .• ,i i;''3D-�n
.'.'i° .x'�s
f�.r.�:�
2002-2003
2780
730
309
2003-2004
2965
764
340
2004-2005
3085
700
349
2005-2006
3203.
937
280
2006-2007
3280
1036
327
2007-2008
3418
9'66
359
2008-2009
3649
.950
375
2009-2010
3903
1056
368
2010-2011
4082
1270
356
2011-2012
4220
1504
373
2012-2013
4369
1465
486
2013-2014
4496
1603
472
TVDSB currently offers French Immersion in ten Elementary schools and five Secondary
Schools.
The populations shown below are based on enrollment as of October 31, 2014.
c
femenar 'dfFrdnc IhAM''im"' iets'lo
*Centennial Central
25 (last year for extended) 303 - full population
JS Buchanan
222
*Jeanne SaM
454
*Kensai Park
824
Lord Roberts
410
Louise Arbour
582
*Pierre Elliott Trudeau
778
Princess Anne
1515
*Princess Elizabeth
1268 (French immersion) 606 - full population
Roch Carrier
1377
West Oaks
293
*Includes Extended Program
Second Schools. _
7,7F,of
ftoph "I'' e
OpQ ationc
Parkside Collegiate Institute 134
Sir Frederick Banting 327
Sir Wilfrid- Laurier 362
Strathroy District Collegiate Institute 75
Woodstock Collegiate Institute 79
8 1 P a g e
The following table provides a list of the secondary French Immersion courses that were offered
during the 2013-2014 school year.
CiO,ur$e .Narrxe } r ,s- : Course Cod ;Gra, x 3 eget g ;
t,... _.
Information and Communication Technology in Business
BTT10
9
Open
Geography of Canada
CGC1 D
9
Academic
Physical Geography: Patterns, Processes and Interactions
CGF3M
11
University/College
The Environment and Resource Management
CGR4M
12
University/College
Canadian History Since World War I
CHC21D
10
Academic
Civics
CHV2O
10
Open
World History to the Sixteenth Century
CHW3M
-11
University/College
World History: The West and the World
CHY4U
12
University
Canadian and International Law
CLN4U
12
University
Extended French
FEF1 D
9
Academic
Extended French
FEF21D
10
Academic
Extended French
FEF3U
11
University
Extended French
FEF4U
12
University
French Immersion
FIND
9
Academic
French Immersion
FIF21D
10
Academic
French Immersion
FIF3U
11
University
French Immersion
FIF4U
12
University
Career Studies
GLC2O
10
Open
Challenge and Change in Society
HSB4M
12
University/College
Introduction to Anthropology, Psychology, and Sociology
HSP3M
11
University/College
Principles of Mathematics
MPM1D
9
Academic
Principles of Mathematics
MPM21D
10
Academic
Functions
MCR3U
11
University
Advanced Functions
MHF4U
12
University
Biology
SB13U
11
University
Science
SNC1 D
9
Academic
Science
SNC2D
10
Academic
9 1 P a g e
Learning Support and Resources
Professional Learning Support for French Immersion is provided on many levels. An FSL team,
including a Learning Coordinator and a Teacher on Special Assignment for FSL, is responsible
for supporting teachers of French Immersion, Extended French Immersion and Core French
from Kindergarten to Grade 12. Funding for the Teacher on Special Assignment position is
currently taken from professional learning funds provided through the Ministry of Education by
the Canada -Ontario Agreement on Minority Language Education and Second Language
Instruction and is renewed on an annual basis.
The FSL team is responsible for the following:
1. supporting teachers by offering professional learning opportunities, obtaining resources
and providing feedback to teachers or administrators;
2.. responding to questions about registrations for French Immersion;
3. presenting at French Immersion Information Nights;
4. providing information to students, parents and teachers around student exchanges.
The TVDSB FSL team is currently working with administrators participating in an FSL Principal
Lead Team to create a communication tool kit for administrators and teachers for FSL which
involves face-to-face sessions as well as web and teleconferences to deepen the
.understandings of FSL learning and teaching in Ontario.
As part of a regional team, the FSL team participates in three or four face to face sessions,
usually including teachers from French Immersion who collaborate with colleagues in other
boards in the region to deepen the understandings and improve teaching methods in FSL. The
teachers take what they learn and incorporate it into their practice with the expectation that they
Will. bring back samples of student work to discuss, and perhaps moderate, to improve
assessment practices. In addition to regional meetings, the FSL team participates in regional
FSL teleconferences exploring current theories in second language acquisition and discussing
how each school board implements the FSL program. Provincial meetings take place twice a
year to support the ongoing development of language acquisition learning and teaching with
respect to the CEFR. Coordinators, learning supervisors and superintendents attend these
meetings to collaborate and. share current findings in FSL.
Teachers are invited several times a year to participate in web, conferences through Curriculum
Services Canada to discuss in an online forum current pedagogy and ideas for classroom
implementation of curriculum.
The FSL team has been facilitating opportunities for a Grade 1 and a Grade 2 teacher from
each of the French Immersion schools to participate in learning teams with colleagues to
develop and implement lessons, and debrief with regards to meeting student needs. There is a
team of five instructional coaches who support the French Immersion schools in TVDSB and
participate in learning teams. Through this process, school teams are exploring oral proficiency
and assessment in French in the primary grades and looking towards the implementation of a
portfolio with the goal of having'a valid and reliable assessment of oral proficiency.
The FSL team supports networks based on teacher and.student needs in French Immersion. In
2013-2014, the learning teams consisted of a representative from each division in each school
as well as additional teacher -facilitators who attended additional training around the Common
European Framework of References for Languages (a key tool in the understanding of second
language acquisition). As well, the FSL Learning Coordinator works with other departments to
support implementation of other curricula involved in the implementation of the French
Immersion program. The FSL team has participated in Social Studies, History and Geography,
and Mathematics sessions in coordination with other Learning Coordinators in providing support
to teachers in this area. In the current school year, coordination to support History, Geography,
Social Sciences and the Humanities is occurring alongside the Secondary Literacy coordinator
for a session called "Attack the Text" supporting deeper reading strategies.
The Learning Coordinator completes the French Immersion Achievement Test (FIAT) and
assessments for students who would like to enter the program at non -entry points. The
assessment consists of an oral component, decoding and comprehension, as well as a written
component. The recommendations .may help to inform the Principal's decision as to whether
the student is prepared to enter the program. The Learning Coordinator provides support in
terms of resources that the teachers and students can use to help in their learning and teaching
such as the reading assessment tool called GB+ and the training associated with the
assessment.
Coordinators support Full Day Kindergarten in all Thames Valley schools. A French Immersion
Full Day Kindergarten task force was developed in preparation for this, and is continuing this
year to discuss student needs as well as teacher and early childhood educator needs within the
French Immersion setting especially with regards to the learning being 70% in French.
The Thames Valley District School Board webpage currently has in place links to' FSL programs
for Elementary and Secondary. The Core and Immersion buttons on the website are currently
under development. There is a link to the FSLTVDSB Twitter feed for updates and information.
The French Immersion Homework Helpline
The French Immersion Homework Helpline was established in March 2014 to provide after
school email and phone support in French to French Immersion students and their families from
Grades 3 to 6 in all content areas taught in French. It is supported with Special Project Funds
from the Ministry of Education. The helpline was offered from March 3 until June 19, 2014 and
resumed September 22, 2014. In September 2014, Thames Valley District School Board
extended the helpline to include Grades 7 and 8. Two Thames Valley teachers who receive the
phone calls and emails on the helpline submit weekly logs that include the dates, times, and
purposes of the calls. The following is a summary of the data from March to December 2014.
111 Page
Kev Findings
As shown in Figure 1, the helpline received the largest number of contacts on Tuesdays during
the March to June time period and on Mondays during the September to December time period.
The fewest number of contacts were on Wednesdays during the March to June time period and
on Thursdays during the September to December time period. The September to December
time period received a larger number of contacts overall than the March to June time period.
Figure 1. Number of Contacts by Day of the Week
I •
Monday
y�,xa. ,, . }..,
Tuesday ' _ :: =w . 6� 11;Raw < �_Ii' ,
Day of the
Week'for Wednesday
Contact
Thursdayv.a:F.srfGa'
Total
0 15 30 45
Number of Contacts
D March -June (Gr. 3-6)
®September -December (Gr. 3-8)
60 75
The helpline received the largest number of contacts between 5:30 and 6:30pm during the
March to June time period and between 6:30 and 7:30pm during the September to December
time period. The number of contacts for each time period is presented in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Number of Contacts By Start Times
,;:�. � • tea;; f IP , 3
5:30-6:30 i
Start
Times
6:30-7:30
7:30-8:30
0 10 20 30
D March -June (Gr. 3-6)
® September -December (Gr. 3-8)
Number of Contacts
40
50
The helpline was used most by Grade 6 students during the March to June time period and by
Grade 5 students during the September to December time period. The helpline was used the
least by Grade 2 students (although the helpline was accessed by two Grade 2 students it was
intended for students in Grades 3 to 6) and Grade 5 students during the March to June time
period and by Grade 8 students during the September to December time period. Figure 3 shows
the number of students who contacted the helpline from each grade.
Figure 3. Number of Students Who Contacted the Helpline by Grade
G r. 2 ="I-'
Gr. 3�:;„- p,
o•
Grades of Gr. 4
the Students
Calling the
Helpline=¢�u.
Gr. 6 `
Gr. 7
Gr. 8
0 10
0 March -June (Gr. 3-6)
® September -December (Gr. 3-8)
20 30 40
Number of Students
50
Students (40 contacts) made the initial contact more often than parents (17 contacts) during the
March to June time period but parents (37 contacts) made the initial contact more often than
students (31 contacts) during the September to December time period. Almost all of the
contacts were made by phone during both time periods. As displayed in Figure 4, the largest
number of contacts was for support in mathematics. A smaller number of contacts were made
for support in science, reading, or vocabulary or for a general inquiry.
Figure 4. Reason for Contacting the Helpline
Mathematics
Reason for
Science
Contact
0 March -June (Gr. 3-6)
General Inquiry �-
® September -December (Gr. 3-8)
Reading/Vocabulary 1 l
0 10 20 30 40
Number of Contacts
50 60
131 Page
Summary of Learnina Support and Homework Hell line
As the French Immersion program in TVDSB grows, so does the need for effective, current
professional learning opportunities. A team approach has been most effective in being.
responsive to the identified learning needs of the FI educators. As the data from the Homework
Helpline reflect, there is a demonstrated interest in this type of support, with the highest number
of users in the junior grades. Usage of the helpline continues to increase and this support will
continue as long as funding is provided at the Ministry level. .
Student Achievement
Senior Kindergarten Phonological Awareness
Backaround & Methodoloav
The Phonological Awareness (PA) assessment was designed and developed to provide a
system level assessment of Senior Kindergarten (SK) students' phonological awareness skills.
This assessment contains 33 items and is administered to students by Speech and Language
Pathologists in TVDSB. The PA assessment has been administered to students for the last
fourteen years and has shown to correlate with other measures of achievement. Fall and Spring
SK PA scores were compared for students in French Immersion (FI) and those in the regular
English program over five years (2008-2009 school year to 2012-2013 school year).
Kev Findinqs
Results indicated that FI students scored significantly higher than non -FI students in the Fall of
SK for all five years with the exception of the 2008-2009 school year where the two groups did
not differ. In the Spring of SK, the groups did not differ in PA scores for any of the school years
with the exception of the 2008-2009 school year where students in the regular program scored
significantly higher than FI students. Fall and Spring PA results are presented in Figures 5 and
6, respectively.
Figure 5. Fall Historical PA Results for FI and Regular Program Students
100 - « French Immersion ■ Regular Program
80 -
d3limEg
Figure 6. Spring Historical PA Results for FI and Regular Program Students
100 -
0 French Immersion
6
■ Regular Program
80
60
Mean %
;
Correct
40 -
• Jrz•k' ,
rtu�
k
20
y.
2008-2009
2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 5 Year Average
Groupe Beauchemin (GB+) French Immersion Literacy Assessment
Background & Methodoloov
The GB+ assessment is administered to FI elementary students in TVDSB to provide a system
level assessment of French literacy skills. This assessment is administered to FI students in
Grades 1 to 8 by the classroom teacher. The GB+ assessment has been administered to
students for the last seven years and has shown to correlate with other measures of
achievement. Average Fall GB+ scores were examined for FI students in each of the
elementary grades over four years (2009-2010 school year to 2012-2013 school year). Spring,
results are not presented in the report as system -level Spring results were only available for
three years (not available for the 2012-2013 school year) due to low reporting rates.
Kev Findings
Results indicated some variability over time for Grade 1 students with 44-56% of students at or
above the grade -level. target. Results were more consistent across years and percentages were
generally higher for students in Grades 2 and 3 with averages of 67-70% for Grade 2 students
and 68-74% for Grade 3 students. GB+ results for students in the primary grades are presented
in Figure 7.
Results were somewhat variable, although relatively strong, across years for students in the
Junior division. The average percentage of Grade 4 students who were at or above target
ranged from 72 to 82%. Results indicated that 67-76% of Grade 5 students and 63-76% of
Grade 6 students were at or above target. GB+ results for students in the junior division are
presented in Figure 8.
GB+ scores in Grades 7 and 8 extended and non -extended showed the greatest variability over
time when compared to the primary and junior divisions. The percentage of Grade 7 students at
or above target was 61-92% for non -extended and 58-80% for extended across the four years.
HUM
Grade 8 non -extended students ranged from 62-82% at or above target and Grade 8 extended
students showed .64-82% at or above target. More recent GB+ scores have been relatively low
in Grades 7 and 8, particularly in Grade 7 extended and in Grade .8 non -extended. Intermediate
GB+ scores have shown a gradual decrease over time. Results for students in the intermediate
grades are presented in Figure 9.
Figure 7. Primary Historical GB+ Results for FI Students
%At or 60 -
Above P;
Target 40
w �'r
20 _ x
O
Grade 1
02009-2010 02010-2011 02011-2012 ■ 2012-2013
Figure 8. Junior Historical GB+ Results for FI Students
100
80 -
% At or 60 -
Above
Target 40 -
20 -
0 -
Grade 4
Grade 3
02009-2010 02010-2011 02011-2012 ■ 2012-2013
Figure 9. Intermediate Historical GB+ Results for FI Students
100
Ce
Grade 7
03 6 -
The GB+ results overall indicated that Grade 1, and in more recent years, Grade 7 (particularly
extended) and Grade 8 (particularly non -extended) showed the largest proportions of students
not reaching grade -level targets.
Developmental Reading Assessment for English Literacy
Background & Methodoloav
The Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) is administered .to elementary students in
TVDSB to provide a system level assessment of English reading.skills. This assessment is
administered to FI students in Grades 2 and 5 by the classroom teacher. The DRA has been
administered to students for the last fourteen years and has shown.to correlate with other
measures of achievement. Average Spring DRA scores were compared for FI and non -FI
students in Grades 2 and 5 over five years (2008-2009 school year to 2012-2013 school year).
Kev Findinas
As presented in Figure 10, results indicated that Grade 2 FI and non -FI students did not differ in
DRA scores for any of the school years with the exception of the 2010-2011 school year where
FI students scored significantly higher than non -FI students.
Differences between FI and non -FI students did however exist in Grade 5. Results indicated that
FI students scored significantly higherthan non -FI students on the Grade 5 DRA assessment in
each of the five years that were analyzed. DRA results for Grade 5 students are presented in
Figure 11.
Figure 10. Grade 2 Spring Historical DRA Results for FI and Regular Program Students
100 - D French Immersion , ■ Regular Program
80 -
At or 60 -
Above
2008-2009 2009-2010
2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 5 Year Average
171 Page
Figure 11. Grade 5 Spring Historical DRA Results for FI and Regular Program Students
100 -
F
��''`�Fp�C
80
x
f'
-U
PH
�.$I
.Eli
¢•p=i& •.
Above
Target 40
">5•.A:rsf�-2`',y
x'E
`[��i �. QIP::
20
0 French Immersion ■ Regular Program
Y �Yl
N� 4�#',H •Y�
��''`�Fp�C
¢H
x
PH
2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 5 Year Average
Elementary Report Card
Backqround & Methodologv
Elementary report card grades were compared for FI and non -FI students for a number of areas
of English literacy and math strands. French literacy scores were also reviewed for FI students.
The percentages of primary, junior, and intermediate students who received a rating of good or
excellent in June of the 2012-2013 school year were examined in order to determine if
differences in report card grades existed between FI and non -FI students and between the three
divisions and the subject areas examined.
Kev Findinqs
The results showed that a larger proportion of FI students received a rating of good or excellent
compared to non -FI students in each of the subject areas examined for all three divisions. For
English and French literacy, the percentages of FI students receiving a score of good or
excellent generally increased from primary to intermediate. The percentages generally
decreased from primary to intermediate for math. At the primary level, FI students received
lower ratings in English and French reading and writing compared to oral communication and
math. Students received lower ratings in French writing and two of the strands in mathematics
(Number Sense & Numeration and Measurement) at the junior level. French reading, Number
Sense & Numeration, and Data Management & Probability received the lowest ratings at the
intermediate level. Elementary report card results are. displayed in the Table.below.
181 Page
Percentage of Students Who Received a Report Card Grade of Good or Excellent
:"' ^16iv"E SiM 8 VR§i @'. •q °.p,�ffA .a.., .it + xA5if hi'N AN4a,, rt
'IT,
41 lA
PrEmary
f F ,vier, a
Jur
Itof
to
v¢. /,S rand,
FIS
stem
Fly
S.ysterr�
FI
a Sys%Yrrt
=,4cademcSujecfi
:r
English Reading
76.9
%fi60 'y
84.0
72:'1':'
85.6
3 j72'`3s
Writing
73.4
60 3�
79 2
ry k y'' 67:3
86.3
° , . E 7,0.
Oral Communication
89.37.9
5Y
,er .... ¢ • ....X ;.. `
90 3
"3 815:
.•n ., r.nx. i. ..
90.4
m 78 7
., v..sv ..vk
French Reading
_
75.8
79.5
; J
79.7
Writing
72.2
75.2
80.1
i 'r t
-C
Oral Communication
80.3
83.2
87.0
;
Math Number Sense & Numeration
81.2
r
73-2:
76.6
70 T u
78.7
rt 66 1=#
Measurement
82.7
r° 1 . 76:O�Ri
76.5
M&
80.5
' `67 4 '
Geometry & Spatial Sense
86.0
79'6
78.8
:_; ?„;Y '75 4
81.0
Patterning & Algebra
86.1
-76 7
80.8
74 5
81.8
691;;
:%:fin: x..ev°, .. ,Q.,
i
'•
Data Management &Probability
88.48a
4
82 0
79.9
Grade 8 Math Inventory
Background & Methodoloav
The Grade 8 Math Inventory was designed and developed to provide a system level
assessment of Grade 8 students' mathematics skills. This assessment contains 53 items and is
administered to students by classroom teachers. The Math Inventory assessment has been
administered to students system -wide for the last three years. Grade 8 Math Inventory total
scores were compared for students in FI and those in the regular English program over three
years (2011-2012 school year to 20134014 school year).
Kev Findings
As shown in Figure 12, the results indicated that a significant difference in average total score
existed between FI and non -FI students. Specifically, FI students scored significantly higher
than non -FI students for each of the three years that were examined. The results also show that
FI students' scores on the Math Inventory have been stable over the last three years.
191 Page
Figure 12. Grade 8 Historical Math Inventory Results for FI and Regular Program Students
100 -
80 -
Mean % 60 -.-W-
Correct40
-"
W
3 or 4
K "
40
t
20
t
20 -
$�
0
2011-2012
Grade 3, 61 & 9 EQAO
Background & Methodologv
0 French Immersion ® Regular Program
2012-2013 2013-2014 3 Year Average
The percentages of FI and non -FI students who achieved a level 3 or4 on the Grade 6 reading
and writing and Grade 3, 6 and 9 math EQAO were compared in order to determine if there
were differences between the two groups. Results from the EQAO assessments were examined
over five years (2008-2009 school year to 2012-2013 school year) in order to determine the
stability of the scores over time for FI students. For Grades 3 and 6, FI status was based on the
student's current enrollment and for Grade 9, FI status was based on the student's enrollment in
Grade 8.
Kev Findings
The percentage of FI students who received a level 3 or 4 on the Grade 6 reading assessment
was significantly larger than the percentage of non -FI students who achieved level 3 or 4. These
results were similar for Grade 6 writing and were consistent across all five years that were
analyzed. Results for FI students were relatively stable over time for both Grade.6 reading and
writing. Grade 6 reading and writing results are shown in Figures 13 and 14, respectively.
Figure 13. Grade 6 Reading Historical EQAO Results for FI and Regular Program Students
100 - 0 French Immersion 0 Regular Program
80
60
% Level
3 or 4
K "
40
t
t
20 -
$�
2008-2009
■J
2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012
2012-2013
5 Year Average
Figure 14. Grade 6 Writing Historical EQAO Results for FI and Regular Program Students
100 -
80 -
% Level 60 -
3or4
40 -
20 -
0 -
2008-2009 2009-2010
0 French Immersion ® Regular Program
41 � �v16 q b°`iR^T
':, r
e' by q;'Y E:4•° ;`:4
2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 5 Year Average
The percentage of FI students who received a level 3 or 4 on the Grade 3 math assessment
was significantly larger than the percentage of non -FI students who achieved level 3 or 4. These
results were similar for Grade 6 math and were consistent across all five years that were
analyzed. Grade 3 and 6 math results -for FI students were relatively stable over time. EQAO
primary and junior math results are presented in Figures 15 and 16, respectively.
Figure 15. Grade 3 Math Historical EQAO Results for FI and Regular Program Students
100 - p French Immersion ®Regular Program
80 -
/o Level 60
3 or 4 gap,
40
. a 4i
2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 5 Year Average
Figure 16. Grade 6 Math Historical EQAO Results for FI and Regular Program Students
100 -
0 French Immersion ■ Regular Program
80
60 :dE`
%Level F� p,..
3or4
40
F}'
20-
:tea%r.��'i°
0
2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 5 Year Average
211Page
The percentage of FI students who received a level 3 or 4 on the Grade 9 Academic math
assessment was relatively high and not significantly different from the percentage of non -FI
students who achieved level 3 or 4. These results were similar but substantially lower for Grade
9 Applied math. Results were consistent across all five years that were analyzed and scores for
FI students were relatively stable over time for academic students. Applied students who had
been enrolled in FI showed more variability in scores over time with increases in scores in 2010-
2011 and 2011-2012. Results for Grade 9 Academic and Applied students are presented in
Figures 17 and 18, respectively.
Figure 17. Grade 9 Academic Math Historical EQAO Results for FI and Regular Program Students
100 - O French Immersion in Grade 8 ® Regular Program in Grade 8
80
12
Level60 1 Al
3 or 4..v
u €
; I
40
yy.
'.a'Q • y ;
_11
,.y ,A� d F
.� k�'X• if s�.. � v �� f , �'d;#` .i.3 .. Y,'
2008-2009 "2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 5 Year Average
Figure 18. Grade 9 Applied Math Historical EQAO Results for FI and Regular Program Students
100 - 0 French Immersion in Grade 8* 0 Regular Program in Grade 8
80 -
Level 60
RIO
40
20
0 ,,, :.iT �%.' ,a;f;�ee.f.i }•.Aair "<'.> <1. �i'``: $tv �'-
2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 5 Year Average
* Sample sizes for FI Applied groups are very small (ranging from 14-83 students per year) so results should be
interpreted with caution.
Ontario Secondary School Literacy Test
Background & Methodoloav
The percentage of Grade 10 fully participating first-time eligible students who were successful
on the Ontario Secondary School Literacy Test (OSSLT) were compared for students who had
been enrolled in FI during their Grade 8 year and those who had not been enrolled in FI in
Grade 8 in order to determine if there were differences between the two groups. Results from
the OSSLT assessment were examined over five years (2008-2009 school year to 2012-2013
school year) in order to determine the stability of the scores over time for students who had
been enrolled in FI.
Kev Findinqs
The percentage of Grade 10 students who were successful on the OSSLT was significantly
larger for students who had been enrolled in FI in Grade 8 compared to students who had been
in the regular program. These results were consistent across all five years that were analyzed
and scores for FI students were relatively high and stable over time. OSSLT results are
displayed in Figure 19.
Figure 19. Grade 10 Historical OSSLT Results for FI and Regular Program Students
100 -
«bks„
80
0
Successful 60 -
x
40 - y:
20 -
�t:
2008-2009
D French Immersion in Grade 8 ■ Regular Program in Grade 8
2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 ' 2012-2013 5 Year Average
Summary of the Student Achievement Data
The student achievement data showed that FI students are generally doing very well
academically. Fl students scored higher than non -FI students on most of the achievement
measures and scores for FI students in most areas were fairly stable over time. The
achievement data indicated that FI students showed potential for growth in English and French.
literacy in the early elementary years and in French literacy as they approached the end of
elementary. While FI students generally did well in math throughout both elementary and
secondary, Gr. 9 applied math is an area of growth for both FI and non -FI students. Students
who attended an FI elementary school did as well as students who attended a non -FI
elementary school in secondary academic math and FI students performed better than the non -
FI students in. English literacy at the secondary level.
231 Page
Retention Rates
Background & Methodoloav
In order to determine the number of. students who remain in French immersion for each of the
elementary grades, student retention rate,data•was examined for students in SK to Grade 12.
Detailed charts by grade level are provided in the Appendix.
Kev Findinas
After fluctuating from SK through to Grade 4, student retention in FI begins to steadily climb
from Grade 5 to Grade 8.
There is a significant drop in student retention from. Grade 8 to Grade 9. Over a three year
period, an average of 32% of students left the FI Program after Grade 8. Just over two thirds of
those students stayed in Thames Valley in regular track classrooms. An average of more than
10% of French Immersion students left both the program and the board over that three year
period.
French Immersion retention rates climb steadily.from Grade 9 through to Grade 12. Average
retention rates for each grade (SK. to Grade 12) are presented in Figure 20.
Figure 20. SK to Grade 12 Retention Rates for FI Students
i
[.: E::N' E..zi,t:,, w,y. E:A Er.,;' v 1�.,iE U..vi v x . a:.,,..,.,", k �fto„' „ti.:p:Y v, �n SS', "iE•:'E Ye.�♦`' !.,F:t<E ' 4:...^ ry..E.d,';: ' ',n'f ei.f:F6»'x;€.s •; s,i'"ei„ i .
SK - Gradel ir�m
Grade 1- 2
.: 15 ,6..t, '" 4t e :,•:! 4 :i 4z4 .F .t'"'ign, i'f 'i..E kc`a.ai+?w,.. 'A � ,s.� g.
,r.>F ,6:" drtyi'^i:f>< .5d•'"':I,<:TE.,,•„.., ,•aR ':t�,'k:r..a, ,�:i? .,,.ra;r, ••'i. "4'` ;�i�c.:",d=�,,r..a.,:r.,E,.., "f':i' ,.�x_;x: :ia";a
Grade l-3
AxGra e 3 - 4 ,#'!�'�.,,�n,xi;".�.�'v,..,H,.`:t-`'4, ;f _ :,ra: k : ``fir •(gra S '
r,
Grade 4 - 5 WN009`<��'
Grades_ 6f :�":5 ;h..�4-w°y�..;ay,k�„.�:,a,'�;,_ .;'p. .: ��..�� �y, i-<:{2•�.s�' �,: f,:,�.�i::,a.':�>'�� ,tiv,s'•..' ��r:�.>���•'�=��K.'•i.i�"rt.•."�"°' ,. #,��'`�. r;fEs': ���`.. .. d�fx'°� i�.a, , i`tE��.r`��
e�e`
.vA ''�F';:��;.. .,E,i^, § i�;> '`a..'a'"!t €vy:d;a`v'["xii'; F1 x'.rts. ;i,:e't`°::".p - y-E.,,itP:�',:oi,�. f::a:•': ,.
aati'c�t,�i.,,,,, .Pa�,. za,�', . , ., �,:, W"n• `6 a.P`, b
Grade 6 - 7�., � � �: ���'E, , :�� .•.,E a .,�� .�,
Gra e 7
_ ,.p�..i:t.'r�,6'*'trt'f.rf`,`:, ,,.t�;: ,r,ir: `t1F.� ', =d.• -,r. a,R'^�:.'"'•h'• �''&":,t:,, z't3' #.i'' SE�:'i. ;�',r='n:Eve.w®�:::'. ,;; .�4§.�.� "J :its:.�E•�t1,.
8
• ,.,,,,.• ��i�t a,«. @, ... . .r�`.�€>v ._' "• ,Vi s,i'.�mr,�Ma.3� sc,5. .,:5"�`i%dkt:"-�,''c. .a` .'�." .,f.•`S, a.t i. »acc w,
4". Si=d:...: ... ..<.....: ., a •_
Grade 8 — 9 �:*,r., aat,�,•.'.t , , ', t ti='';�t � � r a ; �altik'i`�t'' ;s s Ese��e�:�'w'B' . ' ao M'. srrt-i:r•xx � a .'�� e 'F`�,iai'L�
Grade 9 -10
-^`4., :e"u:is'":w,i'-, u:,z,,.,x �x8,'wt?"n'y..a:s.ai•':,-r i:.;. ^'.;g,:..
!-;r ,.., �_. •x,..f.,.a4. ::x..� <•a E=f,a�•.,F.:,,.x.'.,� ..: �,,•..,_ .'.
r.:-.Fs,•rt a�e'�„6,�tx,.,•s- 5.:9e-'% L*F� �i"�'. iif : ,i'.e
'ray»'e'i"'�"'-'P:a '?,-"°::s?:." ,.;';w.s:k`m€nE�p<. .E�: <Esb th,.c ax.akr; x.:,.p.'u .<.&>aRcx• •r °ra�,xm .�r vs:a•,w,.�:�.y mss:,•
Grade l0 11 <�,..>:�.>&:t:w::;.,,,:..,x..„r..';,.p:',�,.:�•u:.,,;,>,.:n::�,,.•�: ,,::.r,,,t'<E=
.... ,•.s1Y�d`:'N'ua a:*,,�.^,k.,'+%,•'x ., 'qq` T: :M ,: "*Jr .�' '
Grade 11- 12
... `- ..ku nP i,� ...z'.t. �..z a -.'b" �..�'.i �'.s....d�:1F ':":S�a�. t x� "'3 i2IC9iS' `r §•Y',��4;&'�:^1:A��`m ir:,&^:s. A�z.� .!<..x�:.,t€�.:_ .... M:.q+: ..� i"4', :'��•�•w. M1,�_�•'&,
f
i i f E E E
0 20 40 60 80 100
% of Students Who Remained in FI
241 Page
The Extended French Program in Thames Valley has a student entry point of Grade 7.
Retention rates for these students are tracked from Grade 7 to Grade 8 and from Grade 8 to
Grade 9, as students who remain.in the program in Grades 9 and beyond are blended in with
students in the French Immersion Program in their Secondary School.
Extended French retention from Grade 7 to Grade 8 is 79% on average over a three year
period. Student retention from Extended French in Grade 8 to the Grade 9 program drops
significantly in the same three year period, with just over 50% of students remaining in the
program. Roughly 35% of these Extended French students move to the regular track in High
School and almost 15% of the students that were in Extended French leave the Board -
altogether. Average retention rates for each grade of the extended program are presented in
Figure 21.
Figure 21. Grade 7 to 9 Extended Retention Rates for FI Students
i NA
1 I 1 1 1
0 20 40 60 80 100
% of Students Who Remained in FI
Stakeholder Perspectives
Student Perspectives
Backaround & Methodoloav
Two Student Voice Conferences were held on May 13th and 16th, 2014 at the Education
Centre. All French Immersion schools in Thames Valley were invited to participate by sending
student representatives for the -day. May 13th was for Elementary French Immersion students
from Grades 7 and 8, and May 16th was for Secondary French Immersion Students from
Grades 9 - 12. All five French Immersion Secondary schools were represented. Seven of the
eleven French Immersion Elementary schools were represented. A total of 79 elementary
students participated and 66 secondary, students participated.
Throughout the full day for each session students participated in a variety of activities which
solicited their ideas, feelings and perceptions about their experiences as French Immersion
251 Page
students. Student voices were_ captured to represent FI perspectives, through the activities of
the day.
Passports were handed out to students as their nametags and they filled in their information
including name, grade, language(s) spoken at home, number of years of French instruction and
gender, and on the back they had a prompt of "What French Immersion means to me...'.
For the Road Map Activity, students were asked to write their thoughts on stickers labelled
"Looks like", "Feels like", "Sounds like" and put them on a large scale version (mural) of a road
entitled "As We Travel Through French Immersion". Students could describe how they felt, at
different points of French Immersion (whatever their entry points were) and place it on the road
when they were feeling that way. There were two parts to the mural, one for the elementary
day, and one for the secondary which were joined together. The results could be read by the
students later in the day and were generally shared with them by the facilitator at the end.
Exit cards were prepared in the form of a postcard and handed out to students towards the end
of the day, including the following questions: What is your favourite subject taught in French?
Have you ever participated in a French Exchange? What is your comfort level communicating
orally in French? Will you continue in French through high school? What do you feel is your
comprehension level in French?
As a school team, students were asked to provide input on what they thought French Immersion
was all about, in particular highlighting benefits and challenges of being in the program. After
brainstorming their ideas on post -it notes, the post -it notes were compiled by theme and then
used to outline the common themes on a template where they could describe any supports they
felt were already in place, and any supports they felt should be put in place, as well as who the
stakeholder (from a choice of peers, teachers, principals, parents and school board) might be to
help them to achieve those. As a second part to this, the students,were then asked to highlight
and list in an organizer given to them, all the key messages they would like these stakeholders
to hear.
Results from other informal discussions and activities such as "Speaker's Corner" are not
presented here but indicated many of the same findings as those listed below.
Kev Findings
A larger proportion of the participants were female for both the elementary (56%) and secondary
(79%) sessions. Almost all of the students spoke English at home and a smaller proportion of
elementary (27%) and secondary (15%) students spoke French at home or spoke a language
other than English or French at home (14% elementary, 11 % secondary). Elementary students
had received a mean of seven years of French instruction and secondary students had received
a mean of ten years.
Students were asked to indicate their favourite subject that is taught in French. The largest
number of elementary students mentioned math (47%), science (18%), French (10%), or
261 Page
physical education (10%). Secondary students most often indicated science (26%), History
(22%), math (18%), or French (18%). Most of the elementary students (84%) indicated that they
would continue in French in secondary school.
Students were asked to rate their comfort level communicating orally in French and their
comprehension level in French on a five point scale with 5 representing very high levels and 1
representing very low levels. As shown in Figure 22, results did not differ for elementary and
secondary students -with average ratings of about 3.5 - 4 for communication and about 4 for
comprehension.
Figure 22. FI Students' Self -Assessments of Communication and Comprehension
5 _ 13Elementary 0Secondary ®Total
Comfort Communicating Comprehension Level
When asked to complete the sentence "French Immersion Feels Like...", elementary, students
most often used words. related to community, challenges, a new experience, or improvement to
complete the sentence. Secondary students most often used words related to community,
opportunity, or improvement. When asked to complete the sentence "French Immersion Looks
Like...", elementary students most often used words related to a regular classroom or school,
challenges, or happiness. Secondary students most often used words related to community,
opportunity, or challenges. When asked to complete the sentence "French Immersion Sounds
Like...", elementary students most often used words related to the language, novelty, or noise.
Secondary students most often used words related to the language.
Students were asked to work together with their school team to complete a "School Message"
placemat. Questions contained within the document were related to the benefits and challenges
of FI, the existing and needed supports and programs in Fl, who can help put each of the
programs and supports in place, and messages that should be given to Fl teachers, principals,
peers, parents, and the board. Results indicated that students most often believed that job
opportunities were a benefit to FI but that there is a greater workload (elementary) and
insufficient course offerings (secondary) in FI. Elementary and secondary students believed that
teachers and other staff members currently provide support but elementary students thought
that additional online support is needed. Teachers, principals and the board were most often
mentioned as those who could help provide support and programs to FI students. Messages
from students to various stakeholders were most often about the challenges of FI, opportunities
that FI may bring, and the lack of course options at the secondary level. Results from the place
mat activity are presented in the table below.
271Page
3
Mean
Rating 2
t
Comfort Communicating Comprehension Level
When asked to complete the sentence "French Immersion Feels Like...", elementary, students
most often used words. related to community, challenges, a new experience, or improvement to
complete the sentence. Secondary students most often used words related to community,
opportunity, or improvement. When asked to complete the sentence "French Immersion Looks
Like...", elementary students most often used words related to a regular classroom or school,
challenges, or happiness. Secondary students most often used words related to community,
opportunity, or challenges. When asked to complete the sentence "French Immersion Sounds
Like...", elementary students most often used words related to the language, novelty, or noise.
Secondary students most often used words related to the language.
Students were asked to work together with their school team to complete a "School Message"
placemat. Questions contained within the document were related to the benefits and challenges
of FI, the existing and needed supports and programs in Fl, who can help put each of the
programs and supports in place, and messages that should be given to Fl teachers, principals,
peers, parents, and the board. Results indicated that students most often believed that job
opportunities were a benefit to FI but that there is a greater workload (elementary) and
insufficient course offerings (secondary) in FI. Elementary and secondary students believed that
teachers and other staff members currently provide support but elementary students thought
that additional online support is needed. Teachers, principals and the board were most often
mentioned as those who could help provide support and programs to FI students. Messages
from students to various stakeholders were most often about the challenges of FI, opportunities
that FI may bring, and the lack of course options at the secondary level. Results from the place
mat activity are presented in the table below.
271Page
Common Themes from the School Message Results
ELEMENTARY
SECONDARY
Job opportunities 7 Job opportunities
6
A better future 4 Travel and exchanges
3
Learn a new language / become bilingual 2 Provides more diverse experiences and
3
understanding of diversity
Meet new people 2
i-.:Y^::e tiddi. rr ."'"s1X "f: �"+erik eta-,aai, r', N..y `, .�+•'St .'2 •p;:.A,:, :'S°F'd ^a6! '. �.E�_ t,<�'b""vFs'6'y^.¢3 �.6a,z .�'.._: �r .' '4,yYre, i�4,y... ftF:.t�si. 'S".;--i;!P�'
E,
.t d,,y�E ,y >•CvN: .,dAftG,,4v. •..pq`p`: A: a ..:p:f�Y..�:r:2' S r;Ed �(. ,,yy ?5 fie&.. y����(:• ,>i 5.�Cr. «:s..
.n'I8,3.
,�aUW,�:,.4TR. ISM.
'Y
Rr.-f"
v..,5.E,k�W �Yx , a q r. f7.>, J,K'
F , N— .. w � ' .Y. .�fxi�i %i(:s`�a.- �'�'`�bi' 4 9k. A; ��?�:rt&.rmfi.-0i??�i:'N�'E. _ ��$:'°.rc.. .1."`4�.Pi �.�.'&'a+�t�i:..l_.. .. 4'�e.
.E_4k
Too hard / too much work 6 Not enough course options 'in French
5
Difficulties with homework 4 Establishing a stronger voice in the FI
4
program
Changing schools 3 Difficult transition from French to English
2
courses
Not enough French resources at our level 3 It is hard / more work
2
Harder to make friends
2
.., 4f.:^ '•i;: "d,s -•'L, wr.r. .. ."fi T^'ciiz 4i:n B. ,;S,.r 'G 4",v< :9 R:.. ">,�.,,�li'.C`�i iaPki: g3ZR;R..x�+
't':. .9a;• b^�......
��: @@ c, ; % M*x i, R., .}>,'�` g ,�,, ' ` &`--�£ la P�, Cyd>`5�A"c' �i+ad>
_,
'Y .R 'E E„ b' >i, =x5-�r q ?' 3 r 'AA'F t. `� "�i;' t.3ue• r ,.. K
° sExis#ing Suppor'ts'&Progra s ,
Y`:>;W..z,-
s?� �': qag, i; Vis, t4
>, < a .A. �.": `�,.<,::
:•�,
Teachers 10 Teachers and other staff
9
Extra help / homework help 9 Course (online and in class)
6
Dictionaries 8 Extracurricular activities and social events
6
Tutoring 6 Cultural experiences and trips
5
Guidelines / expectations 6 Employment services
3
air ., '�'" W,iA�nf ` ,r�Gk #Ir '± `'s Needed Sup orts &Programs''
':Ci:3 r4 ",' ,t ,' i*Y. R. #E Kf .$:, 'svw>sWivWtn
>,.."w. ;;,�;,�,nv', , ,, v,'.....'_',:..>. ,. lmk..,x, -. ', , ...'.'`; �..:r; "., ..
Online support (websites, apps, chat rooms) 10 More course options in French
6
Extra help / homework help 8. More trips and French cultural experiences
5
French resources 4 Create a stronger French culture and
5
,More
presence in the school
Pen pals / exchanges / trips 4 Extra help
4
Participation with other schools
4
` � Who Cant. �Ielp�Pu #h�' Supports° � P'rog�" s�i Place*
Teachers 39 Principals
34
School Board 37 School Board
33
281Page
Principals 35 Teachers 32
Peers 15 Parents 10
,;_ Mw
bmoholenging 8 It challenging /there are higher 5
expectations
.We are learning msecond language 7 More opportunity 4
We have difficulty understanding the 1anguage 8 Better education 3
Our English might suffer 4 . Lack ufEnglish knowledge 8
VVmcould use more help 3
biochallenging 7 Opportunities for education, S
jobs, and future
We're learning nsecond language 4 Need more course options 4
Opportunities for jobs, future and money 4 It offers obetter education) 4
VVmhave difficulty understanding the language 3 Principals and staff who represent French 3
Immersion students and/or speak French
|timfun 3
,;,�141,� WN., -1,01, .1 Wei
Opportunities for travel / speaking the will 7 Opportunities for travel 5
be beneficial when travelling
for jobs 8
It is hard and ochallenge
5
. It ishard /alot ofwork S
Opportunities for jobs,
4
Opportunities tosocialize /make friends 5
Social issues difficulties making friends
4
It ishard /alot ofwork 5
More course offerings
5
English can suffer 3
Academics are hard / higher expectations
4
Nice students /teachers 3
Better representation ofF|inthe school,
3
Uges flaMfe DVA"qWjJ.
'10 =1
It ishard /nlot ofwork 10
DifficuIt /challenging /high expectations
G
Job opportunities 8
Job opportunities
5
Travel opportunities 8
Parents have difficulty helping with
3
homework
We are learning osecond language/becoming 4
Better education
2
bilingual
29|Page
Summary of Student Perspectives. Data
With respect to. student perspectives, students who attended the Student Voice conferences.
had a reasonable level of confidence in their communication skills and in their perceptions of
their comprehension levels. The greatest benefit to FI that both elementary and secondary
students listed was job opportunities. The challenges mentioned most often were that the work
was too hard and there was too much of it. They identified that they had difficulties with
homework and although there are supports in place, they wanted more online help. Students in
Secondary school felt that there were not enough course options in French. Students felt that
the stakeholders who could put these suggestions into place are teachers, principals, and the
School Board.
Parent Perspectives
Parent Kindergarten Survey
Background & Methodologv
Over the last five years, the Parent Kindergarten Survey has been administered to parents of all.
students in the Fall and Spring of their Junior Kindergarten (JK) year. The purpose of the survey
is to gain important information about students' early learning experiences from a parent
perspective. Parents were asked to respond to a number of questions pertaining to family
demographics, and the academic, physical and social experiences that children have before
starting school and during Kindergarten. Parents were also. asked to rate their child's cognitive,
physical, social and emotional development at the beginning and end of JK, and .share their
beliefs about school and academics and their perceptions of their child's Kindergarten program
experience. Parent responses to some of these questions were compared between students
who entered Fl in SK and' those who continued in the regular program in SK in order to
determine whether differences existed in FI and non -FI students' demographics, early
experiences, and academic and social skills as perceived by the parent. Results were based on
almost 2000 families who had completed the surveys in JK (2012-2013 school year) and
remained in TVDSB for SK (2013-2014 school year).
Kev Findinqs
As shown in the table below, results indicated that FI and non -.FI families did not differ for any of
the socio-economic background variables. Specifically, there were no differences between the
two groups in terms of parents' education -level, family income, single parent status, mobility, or
family size.
301 Page
Kindergarten Parent Survey Results for Socio -Economic Background Items
Other parent does not have a high school diploma 13
Single parent 23
Lived in current neighbourhood less than a year 27
Child has sibling(s) 176
Four or more children under 18 living in the home 17 sy'i Ei fi=
Total family income less than $40,000 53
181
219
345 °;:'13:04;
367
2301 $6 7
203 T,. ....7A `
544
Differences did not exist in the language spoken in the home or children's birth place for FI and
non -FI families. Specifically, there were no differences in the proportion of FI and non -FI parents
and children who spoke a language other than English or French in the home or in the
proportion of children who were born in Canada. Results for language status and birth place are
presented in the table below.
Kindergarten Parent Survey Results for Language and Birth Place Items
n1 t
Child was not born in Canada 9 ';
4:.fi':�; 103
FI and non -FI students generally did not differ in their early experiences related to childcare and
programs attended before starting school and during their JK year. A similar proportion of
students who went on to enroll in FI had attended a literacy/family reading program, a children's
club, an arts program, a play -based children's program, a library program, or daycare before
starting school. However, a larger proportion of students who had enrolled in FI in SK had not
attended Full Day Kindergarten in their JK year. These results are presented in the table below.
311Page
^
1 1W
IF
Attended nliteracy/family reading program before starting school
Attended achildren's club (e.g, Boys and Girls Club) before starting
school
Attended enarts program before starting school
Attended aplay-based children's program before starting school
Attended nprogram etthe public library before starting school
Nndaycare two years before starting school
Child not in Full Day Kindergarten for
�rnmers
`
| 82
8Q3
34
300 ;
| 83
925
| 115
|
=
138G k�u.Y:
| 11U
1350
.
| QD
964
| 147 J
1191
As shown in Figure 23, there were no differences between children who remained in the regular
English programandchi|doenvvhoonroUedinF|inSKinbannmofpmnanta'perceotionooftheir
children's literacy, numeracy and social skills at the end of X.
Figure 23 Parents' Perceptions of Their Children's Skills
BFrench Immersion 0Regular Program
_
Knowledge ofletter names
Knowledge ofletter sounds
Familiarity with books
Understanding the meaning of words
Printing letters
Printing words
Counting and recognizing numbers
'
Understanding number relationships
Understanding patterns
Getting along with other children '
. . . .
0 1 - 2 3 4 5
Offam Me-
Parent Survey for Current French Immersion Students
Background & Methodology
Parents of current elementary FI students were invited to complete an online survey in the Fall
of 2014. The survey included questions about their families' reasons for choosing FI; their
confidence in the decision, their positive and negative experiences, and their satisfaction with
the FI program. A total of 291 parents of children from SK to Grade 8 responded to the survey.
Survey responses were distributed fairly equally between the different grades with each grade
being represented by approximately 8-14% of the respondents.
Kev Findinqs
Parents indicated that a language other than English or French was spoken in the home most
often by almost 6% of parents and about 4% of students. Almost 30% of students had not
attended JK. Most students had enrolled- in FI in SK (65%) while some had started in Grade 1
(28%). A small number had entered FI in Grade 7 (3%) or had begun FI in a different grade in a
board other than TVDSB (4%). About 40% had more than one child currently enrolled in
elementary FI and about 9% had a child in elementary FI and a child in secondary FI.
For most families (78%), the parent(s) made the decision for their child to enrol in FI, while for
some families (21 %), parents and children made the decision together. Parents most often
considered employment opportunities, learning French, and seeking an appropriate challenge
as factors in choosing FI for their child. Parents believed that children most often considered
learning French, being in the same school as siblings and/or friends, and seeking an
appropriate challenge as factors in choosing FI. Results for parents and students are presented
in Figure 24.
Figure 24: Parents' and Students' Reasons for Choosing FI
There are more employment opportunities for those whoj
speak a second language
To learn to read/write/speak in French
French Immersion would provide an appropriate challenge
The school where French Immersion was offered was a better I
school for the student
To learn about French culture
yl
To be able to converse in French with French speaking family xwmwjwmj
members and/or friends
To be in the same school as siblings and/or friends
20 40
D Parents
■ Students
60 80 100
% of Parents and Students
331 Page
Almost all parents who completed the survey (85%) indicated that they were fairly or very
confident in the decision at the time that their child enrolled in FI and a similar proportion (87%)
were currently fairly or very satisfied with the French Immersion program.
Most parents indicated that their child was doing well in English and French reading and/or
writing, math, other subject areas, and socially. Most parents indicated that they like the Fl
school overall but only about half of the parents believed that the location of the FI school works
well for their child. Some parents indicated that French and English reading and/or writing is a
challenge for their child and that the school location -is not ideal for their child. Some parents
indicated that their child's FI school is too big and overcrowded or does not include enough
green space for children to play. Among parents who responded to the question that asked
about the support provided to children with special needs, most indicated that special needs are
well supported in Fl. Results for both positive experiences and challenges are presented in
Figure 25.
Figure 25. Positive Experiences and Challenges in the FI Program
Parent Survey for Students Who Left French Immersion
Backaround & Methodoloav
Parents of students who had left the FI program but remained in TVDSB were invited to
complete a survey in the Spring of 2014. The survey' included questions about the families'
reasons for choosing FI, their reasons for leaving FI, their confidence in the decisions, their
positive and negative experiences since leaving FI, and their satisfaction with the new-
school/program. A total of 141 parents of children who were in Grades 1 - 9 responded to the
survey. As shown in Figure 26, survey responses were not equally distributed between the
341Page
English reading and/or writing
The School Overall
Socially
Math
Other Subject Area (not Read ing,'Writing, or Math)
French reading and/or writing`"-u�-=
School Location
0 Postive Experience
■ Challenge
Special Needs
0 20
- 40 60 80 100
of Families
Parent Survey for Students Who Left French Immersion
Backaround & Methodoloav
Parents of students who had left the FI program but remained in TVDSB were invited to
complete a survey in the Spring of 2014. The survey' included questions about the families'
reasons for choosing FI, their reasons for leaving FI, their confidence in the decisions, their
positive and negative experiences since leaving FI, and their satisfaction with the new-
school/program. A total of 141 parents of children who were in Grades 1 - 9 responded to the
survey. As shown in Figure 26, survey responses were not equally distributed between the
341Page
different grades as more students had left FI at the end of Grades 1, 2, 3, and 8 and fewer
students had left FI at the end of SK, Grades 4, 5, 6, or 7.
Figure 26. Percentage of Surveys Completed by Grade that the Student Left FI
100 -
To learn to read/write/speak in French
80 -
There are more employment opportunities for those who
% of Surveys 60 -
speak a second language
Completed 40 -
"''```�
The school where French Immersion
offered was a betterschool
20
fo the student
EL
To learn about French culture
SK
Gr.1
Gr.2
Gr.3 Gr.4 Gr.5 Gr.6 Gr.7 Gr.8
members and/or friends
Grade Student Left FI
Kev Findings
Parents indicated that a language other than English or French was spoken in the home most
often by almost 15% of parents and about 9% of students. Approximately 20% of students had
not attended JK. Most students had enrolled in FI in SK (57%) while some. had started in Grade
1 (29%). A smaller number had entered FI in Grade 7 (13%) or had begun FI in a different grade
in a board other than TVDSB (1 %). About 20% had another child currently enrolled in FI and
25% had another child who had left FI before the end of Grade 8.
For most families (64%), the parent(s) made the decision for their child to enroll in FI, while for
some families (34%), parents and children made the decision together. Parents most often
considered learning French, employment opportunities, and seeking an appropriate challenge
as factors in choosing FI for their child. Parents believed that children most often considered
learning French, being in the same school as siblings and/or friends, and employment
opportunities as factors in choosing FI. These results are displayed in Figure 27.
Figure 27. Parents' and Students' Reasons for Choosing FI
% of Parents and Students
351Page
To learn to read/write/speak in French
There are more employment opportunities for those who
speak a second language
French Immersion would provide an appropriate challenge
"''```�
The school where French Immersion
offered was a betterschool
fo the student
To learn about French culture
The French Immersion school was in a better location
``°
® Parents
To be able to converse in French with French speaking family.
members and/or friends
®Students
To be in the same school as siblings and/or friends'"
0 20 40 60
80 100
% of Parents and Students
351Page
Most parents who. completed the survey (72%) indicated that they were fairly or very confident
in the decision at the time that their child enrolled in FI and a larger proportion (86%) were fairly
or very confident in the decision to leave FI.
As indicated in. Figure 28, most parents and children (69%) made the decision together to leave
FI while some parents (22%) made the decision on their own. Parents most often considered
their child's struggle with English or French reading and/or writing or their child's general .
progress compared to other children who were not in FI as factors in leaving. Parents. believed
that children most often considered their struggle with English or French reading and/or writing
or math as the reason for leaving. Some parents.also mentioned that their child left FI to attend
a specific program at another school (e.g., Lester B. Pearson School for the Arts).
Figure 28. Parents' and Students' Reasons for Leaving FI
Child was struggling with reading and/or writing in French*'
Child was struggling with reading and/or writing in English
Child was not progressing at a rate comparable to children
who were not in French Immersion
Child was struggling with math
J
Child was struggling socially
Child has special needs that were not appropriately
supported in French Immersion
The school was too, far from our home
We moved and wanted my child to attend the non -French
Immersion school in our new neighbourhood
El Parents
Transportation issues
` ■ Students
Child was struggling with another subject .area'
Child's siblings and/or friends were leaving French Immersion.•
or were not in French Immersion
Changes to our childcare arrangements made it more difficult
or not possible for my child to attend French Immersion
0 20 40 60 80 100
% of Parents and Students
Most parents (60%) indicated that their child had shown improvement in reading and/or writing
since leaving. Fl. Almost half (48%) of the parents indicated that their child had improved in
math, and some parents (43%) indicated that they like the new school better overall. A small
number of parents indicated'that reading and/or writing (13%) or math (11 %) continued to be a
challenge for their child or that they liked the FI school better overall (9%). Most parents (86%)
were fairly or very satisfied with the new school/program since leaving FI.
As noted in the section that presented the retention data by grade, the largest number of
students left FI at the end of Grade 8. Results -from the parent survey corroborated this finding.
Of the Grade 8 students who did not continue in FI in Grade 9, 40% had begun FI in Grade 7
(compared to 57% who had begun in SK or Grade 1). Parents of these students most frequently
361Page
indicated that the student left FI at the end of Grade 8 because the FI school was too far from
their home, they experienced transportation issues, or their child was struggling with math.
Summary of the Parent Perspectives Data
There were generally no differences in the socio-economic backgrounds, early experiences, or
academic and social skills as perceived by parents between students who entered into FI in SK
and those who remained in the regular program. The majority of parents of current FI students
expressed general satisfaction with various aspects of their child's FI program. Some parents
noted challenges related to their child's English or French literacy or the school location. While
parents of students who had left the FI program reported that they were generally confident in
their initial decision to enrol their child in FI, they also reported being confident in the decision to
withdraw their child. Academic concerns were the most prominent reason for switching to a non -
FI program and most parents indicated that their child had shown improvements since leaving
FI.
Staff Perspectives
Background & Methodologv
Interviews of French Immersion teachers and administrators were conducted in the 2013-2014 .
school year. Twenty eight educators (French Immersion teachers, administrators and
superintendents) from both' the Elementary and Secondary panels were interviewed. The
educators interviewed had a combined experience of over 500 years in education. The interview
results are detailed in Appendix C.
Kev Findings
There was a general perception that students who participate in French Immersion programs
achieve at a high level and display a high level of motivation in their daily work.
There was a general perception that French Immersion parents are highly engaged (either
initially or ongoing) in their child's school life.
There were many perceived strengths of the French Immersion program in Thames Valley. The
Administrators and Senior Administrators identified broad areas like program, culture and
opportunities for learners as key attributes. The teachers identified the strengths of the
individual educators, as well as their willingness to work together, as the most laudable traits.
The challenges associated with the French Immersion program identified by both administrators
and teachers concerned the acquisition of resources, both human and curricular.
Administrators identified the challenge of staffing a growing program from a limited pool of
qualified staff. They also identified the challenge of which courses to viably offer at the High
371Page
School level, to a limited number of students. Staff also identified the challenge in finding the
appropriate French resources to meet the demands of the Ontario curriculum and the needs of
the students.
French Immersion is perceived by those who work in it as a program that creates opportunities
for students. The, educators interviewed articulated a need to improve supports for the program,
and to advertise and promote the program in the wider community.
While there is great support for the current French Immersion program in Thames Valley, a
diverse assortment of insights was shared as potential areas for consideration — such as hiring
practices and improving connections between panels and schools.
Considerations for Future French Immersion Programming
1) Review and update as needed The French as a Second Language Immersion and
Extended Elementary - Independent Procedure for Thames Valley District School Board
to ensure it reflects current Ministry Curriculum policy.
2) Review the visibility of and promotion of French Immersion in Thames Valley.
3) Explore ongoing connections between the elementary and secondary panels and share
best practices to increase student achievement.
4) Explore current practices in transitioning students from Gr. 8 to Gr. 9.
5) Review hiring practices to ensure that qualified staff are placed in French Immersion
schools.
6) Review the practices around development and acquisition of resources that best support
student learning in, French Immersion.
7) Examine the current policy and assessment tool (FIAT) as it pertains to entry to French
Immersion at non-standard entry points.
8) Review need, potential and viability for more course offerings at the secondary level in
French Immersion.
9) Explore current practices for teacher professional learning to support students in French
Immersion who are experiencing learning challenges.
10) Explore innovative ways to support student learning in FI, including support in French
literacy to FI students in the later elementary grades.
391Page
The Ontario Curriculum: French as a Second Language: Core, Grades 4-8;
Extended, Grades 4-8; Immersion, Grades 1-8, 2013
htto://www.edu.aov.on.ca/ena/curriculum/elementary/fsII 8-2013curr.r)df
The Ontario Curriculum, Grades 9 to 12: French As a Second Language - Core,
Extended, and Immersion French, 2014 (revised)
httr)://www.edu.aov.on.ca/ena/curriculum/secondary/f`sl9l 2curr20l4.r)df
A Framework For French as a Second. Lanauaae in Ontario Schools
httr)://www.edu.aov.on.ca/ena/amenaaement/frameworkFLS.r)df
French as a Second Lanauaae Immersion and Extended Elementary - Independent Procedure
Thames Vallev District School Board
htti3://www.tvdsb.ca/files/filesystem/French%20as%20a%20Second%20Lanqua.qe%201mmers%
20&%20Extend %20Elem%20Jun07.r)df
401 Page
Enqlish School Boards in Ontario — FSL Entry Points and Delivery Methods
Boa
tri ointi b F`Sp
[, vry,#MethodITioait
tatiow
Algoma DSB
Core: Grade 4
600 hours by the end of grade -8
Yes
Extended: Grade 4
Grades 4-8: 25%
Immersion: Not
Immersion: Min. of 50% in each grade
specified
Algonquin and
Core: Grade 1
600 hours by the end of grade 8
Yes
Lakeshore CDSB
Minimum of 50% French instruction
Immersion: JK/SK/1
Avon Maitland DSb
Core: Grade 4
600 hours by the end of grade 8
Yes
Immersion: Grade 1
*Currently only available at one school
Emailed consultant for more info.
Bluewater DSB
Core:
Yes
Immersion: JK
JK -2: 100% French
Gradually increased English instruction starting in grade 3
Grades 7-8: 50% French
Bruce -Grey Catholic
Core: Grade 4
600 hours by the end of grade 8
Yes
DSB
Immersion: Grade 1
Grades 1-3: 75% French
Grades 4-6: 70% French
Grades 7-8: 50% French
Catholic DSB of Eastern
Core: SK
K-8: 30-40 minutes/day
Yes
Ontario
Extended: Grade 4
75 minutes/day
Early Immersion: 1
50% French
Middle Immersion:
50% French
Grade 5
DSB of Niagara Core:
Immersion: Grade 1
DSB Ontario North East Core: Grade 4
Immersion: JK
Dufferin-Peel Catholic Core: Grade 4
DSB
Extended: Grade 5
Immersion: Grade 1
Durham DSB Core: Grade 4
Immersion: Grade 1
Yes
Grade 1-8: Maximize the amount of French instruction (approx.
85% French)
We are still dealing with transition from our former Extended
French program and a late Grade 4 Immersion entry. So things
may change in the future.
600 hours by the end of grade 8 . Yes
JK -2: min. 260 min./day
Grade 3: min. 200 min./day
Grades 4-8: 150 min./day
40 mins/day, 200 mins/week Yes
50% French
Grade 1: 90% French
Grades 2-3: 70% French
Grades 4-7: gradually increases
Grade 8: 50% French
600 hours by the end of grade 8 Yes
Grades 1-3: 100% French
Grade 4: 75% French
Grades 5-8: 50% French
MUM
Durham Catholic DSB
Core: Grade 4
200 minutes per week
Catholic DSB
Extended: Grade 4
Grade 4-5: 70% French
Immersion: SK
Grade 6-7: 50% French
Grade 8: 40% French
Hastings and Prince
Immersion: Grade 1
Grades 1-3: 100% French
Edward DSB
Grades 4-6: 75% French
Extended: Grade 5
Grades 7-8: 50% French
Grand Erie DSB
Core: Grade 4
200 minutes per 5 -day cycle
Huron Perth Catholic
Immersion: SK
SK — Grade 1: 100% French
DSB
By qrade 8: 50% French
Greater Essex County
Core: Grade 4
Grades 4 to 8: 40 minutes every day.
DSB
Grade 3 and 4: Religion + English Language Arts are taught in
Immersion:
Grades JK: Gradually moving toward 80% French
JK/SK/Grade 1
SK -1: Program in French, Incidental and Safety in English
Grades 2-5: 75% French, 25% English
Huron -Superior Catholic
Core: Grade 4
Grades 6-8: 50% French, 50% English
Halton DSB
Core: Grade 4
Grades 4 to 8: 200 minutes/week
Immersion: Grades 1
50% French, 50% English
OR 7
Halton Catholic DSB
Core: Grade 4
Grades 4 to 8: 200 minutes/week
Immersion: Grade 5
50% French, 50% Enqlish
Hamilton -Wentworth
Core: Grade 4
200 minutes French/week
DSB
Immersion: Grade 1
Grade 1: 100%
Grade 2 and 3: Minimum of 225 minutes/week English
instruction
Grade 4 and 5: Minimum of 300 minutes/week English
instruction
Middle School: 50% French, 50% English
Hamilton -Wentworth
Core: Grade 4
200 minutes French/week
Catholic DSB
Immersion: SK
SK: 100%
Grades 1-8: 50% French, 50% Enqlish
Hastings and Prince
Core: Grade 1
Edward DSB
Extended: Grade 5
Immersion: Grade 4
Huron Perth Catholic
Core: Grade 1
600 hours by the end of grade 8
DSB
Immersion: Grade 1
Grade 1 and 2: All subjects except religion are taught in French
Grade 3 and 4: Religion + English Language Arts are taught in
English
Grades 5-8: Religion + English Language Arts + Science are
tauqht in Enqlish
Huron -Superior Catholic
Core: Grade 4
DSB
Immersion: JK
Grades JK -8: 50% French, 50% English
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes (early)
No (late)
Yes
Limited:
Provides
transportation for
students in
grades 1-5,
although location
of bus stops may
be far from the
home. After
grade 5, the
board provides
students with a
bus pass for
public
transportation.
Yes — only bet.
home school -
immersion school
Yes
Yes
Yes
421Page
Kawartha Pine Ridge Core: Grade 4 200 minutes/week
DSB
Extended: Grade 5 50% French, 50% English
Immersion: SK SK -Grade 1: 100% French
Grade 2: 80% French
Grade 3 and 4: 70-80% French
Grade 5 and 6: 50-60% French
Grade 7 and 8: 50% French
Keewatin -Patricia DSB Core: Grade 4
Northeastern Catholic
Immersion: Secondary
Dryden High School
M
Core: Grade 4
Kenora Catholic DSB
Core: Grade 4
600 Hours by the end of grade 8
Grade 4
Immersion: JK
JK -Grade 2: All subjects except Religion are taught in French.
Grade 3-5: Religion + 80 min of ELA in English
Grades 6-8: 50% French, 50% Enqlish
Lakehead DSB
Core: Grade 4
Grades 4-8: 160 minutes/week
Immersion: SK
SK -1: 100% French.
2-5: 80 minutes/day in English
6-8: 50% French. 50% Enqlish
Lambton Kent DSB
Core:
600 hours by the end of grade 8
Immersion: JK
JK -2: 100% French
3-8: 50% French, 50% English
Limestone DSB
Core: Grade 1 and
200 minutes/week (From grade 1 in limited schools)
Grade 4
Grade 7-8: 70% French, 30% English,
Extended: Grade 7
JK -Grade 2: 100% French
Immersion: JK/SK/1
London District CDSB
Core: Grade 4
200 minutes/5 day cycle
Immersion: JK/SK/1
JK -8: All in French except for English and Religion in their FI
Centre.
Near North DSB
Core: SK
Extended: Grade 5'
Immersion: JK
Niagara Catholic. DSB
Core: Grade 1
Implementing Immersion in Sept. 2013
Immersion:
Nipissing-Parry Sound
Core: Grade 4
600 hours by the end of grade 8.
Catholic DSB
Immersion: JK
JK/SK: 50% French
Grade 1 and 2: 90% French, 10% English
Grades 3-6: 70% French, 30% English
Grade 7 and 8: 50% French, 50% English
Northeastern Catholic
DSB
Northwest Catholic DSB
Core: Grade 4
Immersion: SK or
Grade 4
Ottawa -Carleton DSB
Core: JK/SK
Early Immersion:
Middle Immersion
200 minutes/week
JK/SK: 100 minutes.weekly.
Grades 1 to 8: 200 minutes weekly.
SK — grade 1: 100% in French.
Grades 2 and 3 students - 80 % in French.
Grades 4 -6 - 60 % in French.
Grades 7 and 8 - 50 % in French
Grade 4 -6: 66 % in French.
Grade 7 and 8: 50 % in French
Transportation
may be provided
for eligible
students as
determined by
the Board's
Transportation
policies and
administrative
regulations.
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
431 Page
Ottawa CSB
Core: Grade 1
Renfrew Cty,DSB
Extended: SK
Core:
Immersion: SK
Peel DSB
Core:
Immersion: Grade 1
PVNCCDSB
Core:.Grade 4
St. Clair Catholic DSB
Immersion: SK
Rainbow DSB
Core: Grade 4
Sudbury Catholic DSB
Immersion: JK
Rainy River DSB
Core: Grade 4
Renfrew Cty,DSB
Core:
Core:
Immersion:
SCDSB
Core: Grade 4
Extended: Grade 5
SMCDSB
Core: Grade 1
St. Clair Catholic DSB
Core:
SK -8: A minimum of 70% French
Immersion: JK
Sudbury Catholic DSB
Core: Grade 4
Thunder Bay Catholic
Immersion: JK
Superior-Greenstone Core:
See Pathways Sheet (attached)
600 hours by the end of grade 8
Grades 1-8: 50% French, 50% English (effective Sept. 2013 as
per report attached)
200 minutes/week
SK -1: 90%
2-3: 80% (English increases gradually from grades 4-6)
Grade 7 and 8: 50% English, 50% French
600 hours by the end of grade 8
JK: 25% French
SK: 20 minutes of English
Grades 1-2: 100% French
Grades 3-4: 80% French
Grades 5-8: 50% French
40 minutes a day
200 minutes/week
Grades 5-8: Up to 50% French, 50% English
600 hours by the end of grade 8
By the end of JK -grade 2: 80% French
Grade 3: 70% French
Grade 4-8: 50% French
600 hours by the end of grade 8
JK/SK: 90% French
Grades 1 and 2: 77%
Grades 3-4: 65%
Grades 5-8: 55%
DSB
Immersion:
Superior North DSB
Core:
Immersion:
Thames Valley DSB
Core: Grade 4
600 hours by the end of grade 8
Immersion: SK/1 -
SK -8: A minimum of 70% French
Extended: Grade 7
Grade 7-8: A minimum of 70% French
Thunder Bay Catholic
-
DSB
TDSB
Core: Grade 4
600 hours by the end of grade 8
Early Immersion: SK
SK -3: 100% French
Grades 4 and 5: gradually increase English
Grades 6-8: 50% French
Middle Immersion:
Grade 4 and 5: 100% French
Grade 4
Grade 6: 1 hour of English daily
Grade 7-8: 50% French
Toronto'Catholic DSB
Core: Grade 1
Grade 1-8: 30 minutes a day
Extended: Grade 5
EF: 5-8: 50% French
Immersion: SK
FI: SK -2: 100% French
FIA -4: 75% French
FI: 5-8: 50% French
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
441 Page
ti
Trillium Lakelands DSB
Core: Grade 4
600 hours by the end of Grade 8
Yes
Immersion: SK
SK -3: 80-100% French
Gradually increase English until
Grades 7-8: 50% French
Upper Canada DSB
Core: SK
600 hours by the end of Grade 8
Yes
Immersion: SK
Minimum of 50% French, SK- grade 8
Extended:
(see attached sheet)
Upper Grand DSB
Core: Grade 4
600 hours by the end of Grade 8
Yes
Immersion: SK
SK -Grade 2: 100% French
Grade 3-4: 80% French
Grade 5: 75% French
Grade 6: 70% French
Grade 7-8: 50% French
Waterloo Catholic DSB
Core: Grade 4
Min. of 600 hours of the end of grade 8
Yes
Waterloo Region DSB
Core: Grade 1
Min. of 600 hours of the end of grade 8
Yes
Immersion: Grade 1
Grades 1-6: 50% French
Grades 7-8: 35% French
Wellington Catholic DSB
Core: Grade 4
600 hours by the end of Grade 8
Windsor -Essex CDSB
Core: Grade 4
600 hours by the end of Grade 8
Yes
Immersion: JK
JK -3: 80% French
4-6: 65% French
7-8: 50% French
York Catholic DSB
Core: Grade 1
600 hours by the end of grade 8'
Yes
Immersion: Grade 1
Grades 1-3: 85% French
Grades 4-8: 50% French
York Region DSB
Core: Grade 4
600 hours by the end of grade 8
Yes
Immersion: Grade 1
Grades 1-3: 100% French
Grades 4-6: English is gradually introduced
Grades 7-8: 50% French
Source: Ontario
Modern Languages Teacher
Association
OEM
Appendix B
Student Retention Rates by Grade
TVDSB SK — Gr I FI Retention
qTI
'StOdbnts'.Who.-,
#0
n. sv. o.,,,
*bfsf6de
4--
-Stu t 'Uhknown,.,. t
derifs' ,
U� Lints
go,,,, q j, egu alar
- o6tin
n,
—P
P
rogram"
2010-2011 518 45(8.7%) 91.3% 31 (5.7%) 504(97%) 14(3%)
2011-2012 481 48(9.9%) 90.3% 22(4.5%) 455 (94.6%) 26 (5.4%)
2012-2013 488 62(12.7%) 87.3% 38(7.8%) 464 (95.1%) 24 (4.9%)
0%) , :,�
156-(10- .60%kQr-� '4 L
'1487""'
3 students in these cohorts left Fl for theApple Program.
TVDSB Gr I — Gr 2 F1 Retention
'Rdtenbdh'vI o u eh
T1164f, f bf-1111" 11T, t I s:wFif of
-4
H Students Students Rate go.. o,� Regular '6n -no
Sf6 6' hti-,
t —M I
d'
'Ap
";Tiiqkt "Still' Atfd4dh
#6
Bj_
DS
TT " , , C ". ;,:
Program
IV
2010-2011 667 95(14.2%) 85.8% 62(9.3%) 634(95.1%) 33(4.9%)
2011 - 2012 684 93(13.6%) 86.4% 52(7.6%) 643(94%) 41 (6%)
2012-2013 669 98(14.6%) 85.4% 64(9.6%) 635(95%) 34(5%)
MY -0-
'bihed-&--,: 2020'-
2861142%e fir- ),�,��
Com
W.,
k
e
N
1 student in these cohorts left Fl for the Apple Program.
TVDSB Gr 2 — Gr 3 FI Retention
Abf,` "76W'A'
eaAng---
T,
2010-2011 556 74(13.3%
2011-2012 592
2012-2013 616
60(10.1%)
of Students wd,
4-StUd6nf&-. kittd.,,�Uhki
_R6W,"�3, 0646, �141w`-"",�,�,, ,
RegU ar
,? ``TracktApple Stipa"' 'Nr
P
'd
at
TV
D
rami,
86.7% 49(8.8%) 531(95.5%) 25(4.5%)
89.9% 38 (6.4%)... 570(96.3%) 22(3.7%)
59(9.6%) 90.4% 29(4.7%) 586 (95.1%) 30 (4.9%)
0
9 0
Cam binetl :3- , - - ; , , , T , % " " , I ;: 11 ' "'
A 93;1
TF.-
1 student in these cohorts left Fl for the Apple Program.
TVDSB Gr 3 — Gr 4 F1 Retention
Y;I
(nom i
0
Totaf*:`of:-,,Wnti n
'Ot
Aian "'lli 'o �*.-bf`Stu eAIs:j,,q,.
4
"Students--,' , �.-StUdent6��.',,-'iR t&�`f�f
C, bAt.t6-UhknoWh4,
5� tone eglu ar
-to,
oe %,K
V x Fa I W
;z,, �,,gtilllh AR
T- 6dAbI` es
rac pp d' bribbon",
Z' P,rogram-i',44,py
_"
-1 , , " " 7 DSB
P 1,, V
Mir,
Ye
2010-2011 477 65(13.6%)- 86.4%
46(9.6%) 458(96%) 19(4%)
2011-2012 493 62(12.6%) 87.4%
39(7.9%) 470(95.3%) 23(4.7%)
2012-2013 551 65(11.8%) 88.2%
46(8.3%) 532(96.5%) 19(3.5%)
Ci
W:,
6ihbihedI,`3;-,A � " ' ' " " W�`
192 MY, 877,14/6,
yearave—rat
'
4�
I.
4M,
1 student in these cohorts left F1 for the Apple Program.
TVDSB Gr 4 — Gr 5 Fl Retention
_',",
;*`,',OfStudents
r;4- 1_1 tz
Total# 6
f R6tbhfi6n Students ,OVOI��, 4�o
o, Regular ro� Students', Stud ntsIIIOaf4_ t OAVto
_tUbOtr
-1, 1_4
9 Track/Specia .. w3 "
"Still in -.UnKnown,,
Pit
�VDSB',. 'A . fin
�77%7
k Program'IEdUcatioa
M66
2010-2011 421 20(4.8%) 95.2% 13'(3.1%) 414 (98.3%) 7(1.7%)
2011-2012 416 28(6.7%) 93.3% 15(3.6%) 403 (96.9%) 13 (3.1%)
2012 - 2013 . 443 31 (7%) 93% 15(3.4%) .427 (96.4%) 16 (3.6%)
�'-36-j
4 r .:.:i93 4
260, A
1'244
yearya 'erage,
'Z V
*No students from these cohorts went to the Apple Program. 6 students left Fl for Special Education.
TVDSB Gr 5 — Gr 6 FI Retention
ts,who 'Stu
Total ".Vofi
m"v:
Tofalitn Retention ntsmno,
alar; ,Students �n 11-
d6hi "k
eav
,:Program
4
2010-20,11 317 19(6%) 94% 12(3.8%) 310 (97.8%) 7 (2.2%)
2011-2012 410 26(6.3%) 93.7% 11 (2.7%) 395 (96.4%) 15 (3.6%
2012-2013 401 2.0(5%) '95% 13(3.2%) 394(98.2 7(1.8%)
�i':, 4,f `Z3
2%)N
Fit 942, -1, tI,6 /6 11`059"',�
&�`K I` ?AI 1281�,-,
4
1 student in -these cohorts left Fl for the Apple Program.
471 Page
TVDSB Gr 6 - Gr 7 FI Retention.
4 Tufa # of&A
b,Total4d, Retention q,..v. StUd6ht§ ,#,,dfStU At,,g 6-
n is
-Still. t t
:10 Ak jn'kr16, A,
tu -R
d
Spoderitt 9,;', h 46,W
16A 6,�
- -T
JV
W r
: yA,
R,
2010-2011 316 20(6.3%) 93.7% 12(3.8%) 308(97.5%) 8(2.5%)
2011-2012 307 11 (3.66/6) 96.4% 7(2.3%) - 303(98.7%) 4(1.3%)
2012-2013 391 25(6.4%) 93.6% 9(2.3%) 375(95.9%) 16(4.1%)
86
-COM %d',310144i
0,
Al �r-
NN
X,
V.
'A
.**No students from these cohorts went to the Apple Program or Special Education
TVDSB Gr 7 - Gr 8 FI Retention
i!StUI Red.
leaven
4'.1vA rogr
2010-2011 292 . A(1.4%) , 98.6%
ens,.w ofgq,-- �,,#=of
AIr
�,Std,de 6:6xitI
ioJA67
k/tp
ac. b-cliaifunknown
bon
3(1%)
2011-2012 317 10(3.2%) 96.8% 5(1.6%)
291(99.6%) 1(.4%)
312 (98.4%) 5 (1.6%)
2012-2013 300 14(4.7%) 95.3%' 4(1.3%) 290 (96.6%) 10 (3.4%
-IC
*No students from these cohorts went to the Apple Program. 1 student left F1 for Special Education.
TVDSB Gr 8 - Gr 9 Fl Retention
nts*,bf Studehts�
vu
14"'go 0
"IR"at' Sti I I in:.
x
eav
JngT ID-�r
2010-2011 252 81 (32.1%) 67.9% 49(19.4%)
2011-2012 294 82(27.9%) 72.1% 57(19.4%)
220(87.3%)
#`;'bf;,StdddI iiw
��.Okit td:w-k-`nowk.,,,,.,,
32(12.7%
270(91.5%) 25(8.5%)
2012-2013 314 112(35.7%) 64.3% 81 (25.8%) 283(90.1%) 31 (9.9%)
=CO,sus
%1�2-
4�
**No students from these cohorts went to the Apple Program or Special Education
481 Page
TVDSB Gr 9 — Gr 10 FI Retention
Total .# of Total # of; Retentton # ofStudents Students #,6
f Students whoa=
`':Students Students Rate § who go<toy Still in, exit touriknown ,
' x ''Y ' '" 7 � • ' a $'°,`' �> '�
z" .•_ rileaving RegularTrack** TVDSBG destinaiion`fl
PrograrnS<¢�htinaf," 2„ 3 'gj E }5'{gyp S'k•F
2010-2011 253 16(6.3%) 93.7% 11 (4.3%) 248(98%) 5(2%)
2011-2012 263 21 (8%) 92% 10 (3.8%) 252(95.8%) 11(4.2%)
2012-2013 281 23(8.2%) 91.8% 14(5%) 272(96.8%) 9(3.2%)
Y 3 > i 7,'+G ',r• ' f r .;.•• •P. ,i ,a R „ tit 3'ra Fs
,Combined 3 797 60 ,7 5%}' 92 5°l0°/0
year average G _47` , A
**No students from these cohorts went to the Apple Program or Special Education
TVDSB Gr 10 — Gr 11 FI Retention
Total # of Tota(#' of= ,Retention #.of=Students # of Students' ' # of Students who
, ',e m ,boa-Fz
y ,Studeits r ' Stdenfs;` Rate who^go to Still m= exit to unknown 'I
KK _ f
z ; kieaving , £' a Regular. Track`TVDSB dest�ntlonh
�, „q ; 3,�?Y s " %,' �'. i' ,, . a ',, t. .. o d: ax ,, ,&<) g,Y '� A p `4sY ' ', y � 'r,+3,•.' 4
2010-2011 209 15(7.2%) 92.8% 11 (5.3%) 205(98.1%) 4(1.9%)
2011-2012 245 15(6.1%) 93.9% 8(3.3%) 238(97.2%) 7(2.8%)
2012-2013 250 15(6%) 94% 6(2.4%) 241 (96.4%) 9(3.6%)
C.orribined 3 E :•7Q4 45 ;(6 4 to}, , < ; 93,6 l0 25 (3 6./0} ;fi84 (97 2
'year; average &G
**No students from these cohorts went to the Apple Program or Special Education
TVDSB Gr 11 — Gr 12 FI Retention
n ,cps""<= "'>`s" .=:'a"jrr'e e5` #,.: '.�;,,, y,,' � 3' a �,.Yu .z,•�.' •.�"',{,
Stude. f' rz
,Total # of Total # o (Retenttori#'of nts r #F of Students #eo of Students who
Students z Students a ;� , Rate who go to ,rS..,tili in x ' exit to unknown;'
leavng>-:�RegularTrack*TWVDSB kdest�naQn
Progra. 4< "Y t
m
2010-2011 140 7(5%) 95% 6(4.3%) 139(99.3%) 1 (.7%)
2011-2012 195 6(3.1%) 96.9% 4(2.1%) 193 (99%) 2(1%)
2012 - 2013 238 12(5%) 95%. 6(2.5%) 232(97.5%) 6(2.5%)
NJ
Gtr%ibiried: 6 '• 573' -&• L 25K4< .. 564,:'(06.
98
s 1.
Yaverag,
eb_
Y. a. p
w n —,, .. „,k.i` e,•a,' .w <>< nrt ffi' .. -3-. :. .. «: T>,.'.'Y•;". ., :?sYs9?„ iZ. .. ...,?Wffiin'"`Y+'$"u� .::, .<9}:.'x r �• .n s+5 ,-Z'. „'\•
**No students from these cohorts went to the Apple Program or Special Education
491 Page
TVDSB Gr 7 — Gr 8 Extended French Retention
E- :: ;: =total'# of n Total # of ,Retention Rate #;ort Students` gof W,,bf, StUdeirits'.-IA,
5
4",
aK
Student t t �m hot who 0 900
k
tbhAb RbbUlaf,:,
.11 nowr
�A) 6 -,!zv v i
Program 3-a. W 85,�` ds
. "'ric
201.0-2011 143 38(26.6 %) 73.4%
2011-2012. 136 24(17.6%) 82.4%
27(18.9%) 132 (92.3%) 11 (7.7%)
16(11.8%) 128(94.2%) 8(5.8%)
2012-2013 142 26(18.3%) 81.7% 1 18(12.7%) 134 (94.4%) 8 (5.6%
Cokn6ih -42 86,(21 /
Z6
J14:64P4
-7
**No students from these cohorts went to the Apple Program or Special Education
***One student from these cohorts switched to the F1 Program
TVDSB Gr 8 — Gr 9 Extended French Retention
df.Stud6n' t"swJ"h''
o
-h -t
W 0-1 0,2V
'StIUd'dhW--I:,
;_ Sfudent Rahet-4
6A n V
--,di V
6
7
g
2010-2011 136 62(45.6%) 54.4% 42(30.9%) 116(85.3%) 20(14.7%)
2011-2012 116 67(57.8%) 42.2% 53(45.7%) 102(87.9%) 14(12.1%)
2012-2013 112 52(46.4%) 53.6% 32-(28.6%) - 92(82.2%) -20(17.8%)
-14
iWs,8/0
1 (34.
'Year'ra
Yj
�k Q
**No students from these cohorts went to the Apple Program or Special Education
501 Page
Staff Survev Data
Question 1: What is your current role?
Administrators: 13 Principals (4 Secondary, 9 Elementary) of F.I. Schools
2 Superintendents
1 Learning Supervisor
Teachers: 5 Department Heads
1 Acting Department Head
6 classroom teachers
Comments:
This represents a cross section of individuals invested in French Immersion education in the Thames Valley District
School Board. There were 18 Elementary Panel interviews and 10 Secondary Panel interviews. Each individual
interviewed was either directly connected to or had direct personal experience working in a French Immersion school.
Question 2: How many years of experience do you have in education?
Administrators: 16 people interviewed
Combined: 392 years of experience
Average years of experience: 24.5
Teachers: 12 people interviewed
Combined: 187 years of experience
Average years of experience: 18.7
Together: 28 people interviewed
Combined: 579 years of experience
Average years of experience: 20.7
Comments:
The greatest number of years of experience in education was 37. The smallest number of years of experience in
education was 5.
Question 3: What is your connection to French Immersion in Thames Valley?
Administrators: 12 reported being Principal of one FI school
4 reported being an administrator at multiple FI schools
511Page
7 reported they were once teachers in a FI school
3 reported that they have family members currently in a FI school
1 reported supervising 4 FI schools
0. reported being a student in a FI school
Teachers: 8 reported being FI teachers at only one school
4 reported being FI teachers at more than one school
5 reported having family members currently in a FI school
1 reported being a student in a FI school
Together: 12 reported being Principal of one FI school
4 reported being an administrator at multiple FI schools
15 were or had been Fl teachers in at least one school
4 reported being teachers in more than one FI school
8 reported having family members currently in a FI school
1 reported supervising 4 FI schools
1 reported being a former FI student
Comments:
Nineteen (19) of those interviewed were currently or had been teachers in the French Immersion Program in Thames
Valley. Nine (9) of those interviewed were not or did not report being a teacher in French Immersion in Thames
Valley. Eight (8) of the people interviewed had family members in the French Immersion Program in Thames Valley
(just over 28%).
Question 4: Aside from the language of instruction, are French Immersion students different from
regular track students, and if so, how?
Administrators: No: 3
Yes: 13
Reasons:
Greater Student Ability/Motivation/Skills 8
Greater Parental Involvement 7
Fewer Negative Behaviours 4
Language Based Thinkers/Learners 2
Greater Participation in Extracurriculars 2
Students come from a higher SES 1
Embrace New Cultures/Global Thinkers 0
Teachers: No: 2
Yes: 10
Reasons:
Greater Student Ability/Motivation/Skills 7
Greater Parental Involvement 5
Fewer Negative Behaviours 4
Language Based Thinkers/Learners 5
Greater Participation in Extracurriculars 1
Students come from a higher SES 0
Embrace New Cultures/Global Thinkers 6
521 Page
Together: No: 5
Yes: 23
Reasons:
Greater Student Ability/Motivation/Skills
15
Greater Parental Involvement
12
Fewer Negative Behaviours
8
Language Based Thinkers/Learners
4
Greater Participation in Extracurriculars
3
Students come from a higher SES
1
Embrace New Cultures/Global Thinkers
6
Comments:
The vast majority of the respondents (23/28, 82%) perceived that French Immersion students were, in fact, different
from regular track students. The chief identified reason was that the students had greater innate ability, motivation, or
skills.
These students are high achievers to begin with; they want to challenge their own thinking. F1 students are
very self -motivated and want to go further and push themselves.
Greater parental involvement was also identified as a key factor by both Administrators and Teachers, second only to
the student's own ability.
Families are more involved here because they have made a choice to attend. They are invested in the
program. Parent engagement is key.
A smaller number of administrators and teachers also agreed that the overall climate in a French Immersion school is
a positive one in part because of fewer behavioural issues from students. Another identified area of difference from
the regular track was the emphasis on language inherent in the French Immersion curriculum.
Generally, F/ students have a better writing capacity. They have had to listen carefully for language all the
time.
An observation that came from teachers, but not from administrators, was that French Immersion students in Thames
Valley tend to be more global in their world view:
They have a greater global view because they learn another language and culture. They have more
empathy, and more innate global interest.
Question 5: Please tell me about the strengths of the French Immersion program in Thames Valley.
Administrators: Strengths:
Excellent, Established Program 11
Student Language Acquisition 7
Grows French Culture in the Community 6
Excellent Staff 6
Creates Greater Opportunities for Students 5
Network of Sharing amongst Educators 3
Parental Support 1
Fewer Student Behaviours 1
Growing Number of FI Students 1 .
Serves a Diverse Population 0
53 1 P -a g e
Teachers: Strengths:
Excellent, Established Program 3
Student Language Acquisition 2
Grows French Culture in the Community 2
Excellent Staff 6
Creates Greater Opportunities for Students 2
Network of Sharing amongst Educators 6
Parental Support 2
Fewer Student Behaviours 0
Growing Number of FI Students 1
Serves a Diverse Population 1
Together: Strengths:
Excellent, Established Program
14
Student Language Acquisition
9
Grows French Culture in the Community
8
Excellent Staff
12
Creates Greater Opportunities for Students
7
Network of Sharing amongst Educators
9
Parental Support
3
Fewer Student Behaviours
2
Growing Number of FI Students
2
Serves a Diverse Population
1
Comments:
Administrators and Teachers differed on what they saw as the main strengths of the French Immersion Program in
Thames Valley. Administrators' perceptions of strengths tended to be more program oriented and student focussed.
Teacher's perceptions of strengths tended to be more classroom oriented and practice focussed.
The greatest area of identified strength was the program itself, with 14 of 28 (50%) of those interviewed commenting
on it in some form. Eleven (1 1) of the comments on the high quality of program came from Administrators.
There is a great commitment to an Immersion program in Thames Valley. The students are learning the
same curriculum, just in an alternate language. In Thames Valley, we do this. very, very well. There are
strong positive indications of this in the data.
Teachers and administrators both agreed that a key positive attribute of the French Immersion program is the
excellent staff that teaches students every day.
My experience is that there are great teachers! They are dedicated, determined and will persevere even
when all the resources are in English.
The teachers interviewed also indicated that a great strength of the program was the network of professional support
they had with their colleagues.
Staff are quite willing to share resources, especially because these are limited. Staff in FI help each other
out. FI schools tend to be smaller and have a `community feel'.
541 Page
Administrators remarked also on the wider array of opportunities affbrded to students who take French Immersion, as
well as the creation and growth of French culture in the Thames Valley community.
This is public education that creates more opportunities for kids ... We create multilingual students. We
create a higher level of cultural understanding and awareness.
Question 6: - Please tell me about some of the challenges have you experienced in your role that are
specific to the French Immersion Program.
Administrators: Challenges:
Finding the Right Staff/Staffing 9
Cost and Availability of Resources 6
Program Offerings 4
Finding the right Supports for Students 4
Finding the right Supports for Staff 3
The Perception of Elitism 3
Working with Parents 3
Connecting Staff with Regular Track Schools 2
School Boundaries 1
School Facilities 1
Language Acquisition versus True Immersion 1
End of the Dual Track System 1
Student Ability/Achievement on EQAO 1
Busing 1
Assessment 0
The Challenge of Creating a French Culture 0
Teachers: Challenges:
Finding the Right Staff/Staffing
.2
Cost and Availability of Resources
11
Program Offerings
2
Finding the right Supports for Students
0
Finding the right Supports for Staff
0
The Perception of Elitism
0
Working with Parents
2
Connecting Staff with Regular Track Schools
0
School Boundaries
0
School Facilities
1
Language Acquisition versus True Immersion
0
End of the Dual Track System
0
Student Ability/Achievement on EQAO
1
Busing
1
Assessment
1
The Challenge of Creating a French Culture
2
Together: Challenges:
Finding the Right Staff/Staffing 11
Cost and Availability of Resources 17
Program Offerings 6
Finding the right Supports for Students 4
551 Page
Finding the right Supports for Staff 3
The Perception of Elitism 3
Working with Parents 5
Connecting Staff with Regular Track Schools 2
School Boundaries 1
School Facilities 2
Language Acquisition versus True Immersion 1
End of the Dual Track System 1
Student Ability/Achievement on EQAO 2
Busing 2
Assessment 1
The Challenge of Creating a French Culture 2
Comments:
Again, administrators and teachers differed on what they found challenging about French Immersion in Thames
Valley. Administrator concerns centred on staffing, offering program, and finding the right supports — resources or
financial — for staff.
It is difficult to offer a variety of program, especially at the senior level of high school. This becomes a
staffing issue, and a timetabling issue.
Finding qualified, fluent teachers is a real challenge. We need teachers who are fluent in the language and
the culture, and use it with great facility. This is an even larger issue in content areas like physics, chemistry
and math.
Hiring is a challenge — you have to find in one person proficiency in French and in teaching. Would you hire
a teacher just because they speak English? Of course not. It is the same in French.
Teacher concerns centred heavily on acquiring the right resources.to meet student needs.
Resource acquisition is a challenge. Resources cost more and are harder to come by. So are the funds to
get resources. It makes it more challenging to align French curriculum with the English curriculum.
There are no resources. As a teacher, you have to start from scratch. There are no media resources. You
have to translate material. It is much more challenging than teaching in the regular track.
There is a real lack of resources, especially in the Primary grades., Texts, when you can find them, are very
expensive. The budget is a real issue. Regular track schools get funded the same way we do, but their
resources cost less.
Question 7: What else do you think people should know about French Immersion in Thames Valley?
Administrators: Shared Insights:
Increased Learning Opportunities for Students 7
A Great and Growing Program 4
Accessible to All 4
FI Deserves Recognition 3'.
FI Needs the Same Supports as Regular Track 3
FI Contains and Enhances English Instruction 2
Great Staff 1
Teachers: Shared Insights:
Increased Learning Opportunities for Students 6
A Great and Growing Program 3
Accessible to All 2
FI Deserves Recognition 1
FI Needs the Same Supports as Regular Track 2
FI Contains and Enhances English Instruction 1
Great Staff 2
Together: Shared Insights:
Increased Learning Opportunities for Students 13
A Great and Growing Program 7
Accessible to All 6
FI Deserves Recognition 5
FI Needs the Same Supports as Regular Track 5
FI Contains and Enhances English Instruction 3
Great Staff 3
Comments:
There is broad agreement amongst those interviewed that the French Immersion Program in Thames Valley provides
students with more opportunities.
People should be aware of how positive a learning environment FI is: F1 opens doors — sometimes totally
unexpected doors. These can be with jobs, with peers, and with opportunities both in the short and long
term. There are also more opportunities to learn a third or even fourth language as well. It opens doors we
don't even know yet.
We live in an Anglophone. community, but a second language is important and increases success. There
are many benefits to learning a second language, including the fact that it increases your ability to learn a
third one! This can be a positive thing in many careers.
Another noted item that those interviewed wanted shared was the excellent nature of the French Immersion Program.
F1 schools have a strong commitment to student learning and to improving student learning. They are
committed to going beyond, to reaching excellence, and to creating a global perspective.
The program is incredibly successful and growing. Staff are clearly doing an incredible job. If it were being
done poorly, we would not see these results. People keep coming to our schools. The success speaks for
itself.
Praise was also given in the interview for the accessible nature of the program.
French Immersion is not an elitist program.. Everyone is accepted. We have students of
all levels.
Every student should have the opportunity to try French Immersion. All students should start in it and leave
only if they need to.
Finally, given the success of the program, there were comments seeking support — resources and fiscal allocations
from the board, and promotion of the program to the wider community.
57-1 Ra g e
It is a choice program, but we need to recognize that it requires the same support as our other schools. We
see the same needs as in the English programs ... we need to ensure that we have adequate system
supports.
People should know more about FI in Thames Valley. We need to promote it so people know what it is
really about. We need to be more clear about the program itself.
Question 8: If you were in charge of French Immersion in Thames Valley, what would you change?
Administrators: Shared Insights:
Improve the Hiring Process
5
Increase Connections between Panels/Schools
4
Increased Support from the Board
3
More Promotion of FI
2
More Resources/Financial Supports
2
Improved Facilities
2
Increased Connections to French Community
2
Improve/Certify Teacher Language Ability
1
Mandatory Movement of FI Staff
1
FI Elementary Schools on Same Day Schedule
1
as Regular Track Schools,
Review the Role of the FI Department Head
1
Increase Accessibility to the Program
1
Keep the Dual Track Program
1
Change the Entry Points in Elementary
1
Review Allocation of Federal Funds
0
OSSD Accreditation for FI Certificate
0
Lower Class Size Caps
0
PD solely for FI Teachers
0
Portfolio System of Assessment
0
Single Track FI High School
0
Greater Links to Western University
0
Teachers: Shared Insights:
Improve the Hiring Process 1
Increase Connections between Panels/Schools 1
Increased Support from the Board 4
More Promotion of FI 1
More Resources/Financial Supports 3
Improved Facilities 2
Increased Connections to French Community 2
Improve/Certify Teacher Language Ability 1
Mandatory Movement of FI Staff 0
FI Elementary Schools on Same. Day Schedule 0
as Regular Track Schools
Review the Role of the FI Department Head 0
Increase Accessibility to the Program. 0
Keep the Dual Track Program 0
Change the Entry Points in Elementary 0
Review Allocation of Federal Funds 1
OSSD Accreditation for FI Certificate 1
Lower Class Size Caps 1
PD solely for FI Teachers 2
Portfolio System of Assessment 1
Single Track FI High School 1
Greater Links to Western University 1
Together: Shared Insights:
Improve the Hiring Process
6
Increase Connections between Panels/Schools
5
Increased Support from the Board
7
More Promotion of FI
3
More Resources/Financial Supports
5
Improved Facilities
4
Increased Connections to French Community
4
Improve/Certify Teacher Language Ability
2
Mandatory Movement of FI Staff
1
FI Elementary Schools on Same Day Schedule
1
as Regular Track Schools
Review the Role of the FI Department Head
1
Increase Accessibility to the Program
1
Keep -the Dual Track Program
1
Change the Entry Points in Elementary
1
Review Allocation of Federal Funds
1
OSSD Accreditation for FI Certificate
1
Lower Class Size Caps
1
PD solely for FI Teachers
2
Portfolio System of Assessment
1
Single Track FI High School
1
Greater Links to Western University
1
Comments:
There is no general consensus on what individuals would change if they were in charge of French Immersion in
Thames Valley. The six top recommendations for change involve improvements to existing structures rather than
complete overhauls of the existing program.
First and foremost is a desire to change hiring practices.
/would look at staffing. This is the'most difficult thing. We need difficult protocols for staffing in French
Immersion. FSL one is not enough of a qualification. Not all FSL one programs or graduates are -created ,
equally. Hiring is not as simple as getting the right training or the right piece of paper. We end up just filling
positions instead of getting the right person for the job.
Next is an articulated desire to increase connections between panels and schools.
I would increase networking with other FI schools, using technology to connect with each other.
Those interviewed also indicated a desire for more supports from the board to support both ongoing professional
learning and the acquisition of viable resources for educators.
More support. Most workshops and Professional Development are geared towards the regular track. These
supports are lacking in French Immersion: This makes the program more of a challenge.
591 Page
There should be PD specifically for F/ teachers. We do that with other subject associations. We should be
able to work with teachers in FI in other High Schools. We need more money for useful resources. This will
help us stay in common with regular track classes.
The final recommendation that had any kind of significant accord between those interviewed had to do with making
connections to the wider community.
Overall, the communities in Thames Valley would have a better understanding of what FI is and what it
brings to children.../ would make a link to the French Communities — such as playing sports with French
First Language schools. This would help show the authenticity of the program.
"01 r •
x i
7 j1
REPORT TO: BOARD
X] Public ❑ In Camera
COMMITTEE ❑ Public F—] In Camera
PRESENTED FOR APPROVAL
SUBMITTED BY: Sheila Powell, SIGNATURE:
Superintendent of Student Achievement
Date of 2015 February 24
Meeting:
Item #: 12.c
;SUBJECT:
Member`sFiip of the Naming Committee for.the consolidated�'Bish�op Townshend/Lorne Avenue Public
'S
That he B.oardzconsiders>>for:a' proval-the, Namur' ,Commitee membershi .for the
p g P.
• a
RECOMMENDATION. consolidated;Bistio 'Townshend%Lorne•Avenue Pubilic School:`
I? LF kF;
Purpose To ,provide the names of individuals who have agreed to participate in the process to name the
consolidated Bishop Townshend/Lorne Avenue Public School.
Content In accordance with the Board's Policy and Procedures, regarding Naming of Schools, requests were
made for individuals to serve.
The Committee Membership includes:
• two trustees (non-voting), at least one of whom is from that electoral district;
• two parent representatives (voting) residing in the designated school boundary areas,
appointed by the School Council, for each of the school areas involved in a consolidation OR
when only one school is involved in a Naming Committee, two parent representatives (voting)
residing in the designated school boundary area, appointed by the School Council, from each
Division attending the school;
• the Superintendent(s) of Achievement (non-voting) for the area.
Anadvertisement, requesting submissions for school names, was published in the London Community
News on February 12, 2015.
Requests for school names will also be sought through school newsletters and on the Board website.
All submissions are to be received by Friday, February 27, 2015, by Bonnie Williams, Supervisor -
Corporate Services, for forwarding on to the selection committee.
To avoid a conflict of interest in the selection process, members of the Naming Committee are not
eligible.to submit names for consideration.
Cost/Savings
Timeline Naming Committee meeting will commence as soon as possible following the closing of submissions.
Appendices Appendix A: Naming Committee Membership for consolidated Bishop Townshend/Lorne Avenue
Public School.
Relation to Commitments:
❑ Putting students first. 0 Actively engaging our students, staff, families and communities.
❑ Recognizing and encouraging leadership in all its forms. ❑ Being inclusive, fair, and equitable.
0 Ensuring safe, positive learning and working environments. ❑ Inspiring new, ideas and promoting innovation.
❑ Taking responsibility for the students and resources entrusted to our care.
Appendix A
Naming Committee Membership for the consolidated Bishop Townshend/Lorne Avenue Public School
To be announced
Trustee from electoral district
To be announced
Trustee
Mark Gijzen
Parent - Bishop Townshend Public School
Adam Paolini
Parent - Bishop Townshend Public School
Jo -Anne Bishop
Parent - Lorne Avenue Public School.
Helen Hall
Parent - Lorne Avenue Public School
REPORT OF THE SPECIAL EDUCATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE
2015 February 3
12:18 p.m. to 2:38 p.m.
MEMBERS ADMINISTRATION AND OTHERS
Trustee J. Bennett (Chair)
Easter Seals Society, A. Morse
Association for Bright Children, Dennis Ensing (-2:00)
Autism Ontario, B. Curry/S. Young
Children's Aid Society of London and Middlesex, M. Cvetkovich
Chippewas of the Thames, C. Dendias
Community Living Education Committee, S. Wilson
FASD E.L. M.O., W. Conforzi
Epilepsy Support Centre, B. Harvey
Learning Disabilities Association of Ontario (LDAO),
W. Sanderson-Culley
OPACC, T. Smith
Trustee R. Tisdale
Trustee C. Goodall
VIEWS, J. Schaeffer
Thames Valley Children's Centre, S. McDougall
Thames Valley Council of Home and School, J. Nuyens
Regrets: Vanier Children's Services, S. Moore
Absent: Voice for Hearing Impaired Children, M. Barbeau
R. Culhane, Superintendent of Special Education
R. Lee, Elementary Principal
M. Chevalier, Elementary Principal
T. Birch, Secondary Principal (+12:24)(-2:22)
K. Aitken, Corporate Services
M. Damen, Learning Co-ordinator
J. Kelley, Learning Co-ordinator
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair J. Bennett called the meeting to order at 12:18 p.m. in the London Room. at the Education
Centre.
Chair Bennett extended her appreciation to A. Morse and T. Grant for their work in arranging and
facilitating the SEAC orientation session held in January.
2. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA
The agenda was approved on motion and carried.
3. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST — none
4. MINUTES OF THE MEETINGS FROM 2015 JANUARY 6
The minutes were approved as printed.
5. BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES OF 2015 JANUARY 6 - none
6. IEP PARENT RESOURCE .GUIDE UPDATE
Learning Co-ordinators M. Damen and J. Kelley joined the meeting to provide an update regarding
the draft IEP parent resources. Changes were made based on feedback from the committee and a
parent focus group. The updated draft was provided to members. The committee broke into groups
for further discussion. Input and suggestions on both documents were shared.
7. SPECIAL NEEDS STRATEGY UPDATE
A. Morse updated the Committee on the Special Needs Strategy next steps including:
• Thames Valley preschool model of service;
• Family engagement;
• Barriers to enhancing and integration of rehabilitation services (occupational and physiotherapy);
• Union implications for speech language and other health supports; and
• Parent and youth engagement strategy.
A Better Way Forward for Children/Youth with Special Needs flyer is being distributed to families at
the school level via the monthly newsletter.
8. SPECIAL EDUCATION PLAN SUBCOMMITTEE
Supt. R. Culhane advised that committee volunteers are needed to assist with revisions to the Special
Education Plan. C. Goodall, B. Currey and S. Young offered to participate on the subcommittee.
9. SPECIAL EDUCATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE PRIORITIES
Supt. Culhane referred to the Barriers to Parent Engagement in IEP Process priority. Next steps and
process will include looking at the role of the superintendent, principal,, teacher and parent/guardian.
Key points include consultation, communication, continued support through staff changes, utilizing the
parent portal (i.e., Access to IEP in ,parent portal at the secondary level) and email exchange.
It was determined that members will look at creating an effective practices document in April; they
were encouraged to bring forward. an example for discussion.
10. CORRESPONDENCE
Correspondence was received and reviewed from the Ministry of Education welcoming members to
the start of a new term including the commitment and contribution of SEAC for students with special
education needs.
11. NEW BUSINESS
a. Association Presentations
It was agreed that mini association presentations will begin next month. A. Morse of Easter Seals
will present for 10 minutes followed by a question and answer period.
12. FORUM: ASSOCIATION UPDATES - none
13. FUTURE MEETING DATES
Tuesday, March 3 11:45 am -03:00 pm
Monday, April 13 06:30 pm -09:00 pm
Tuesday, May 5 11:45 am -03:00 pm
Monday, May 25 06:30 pm -09:00 pm
Monday, June 15 06:30 pm -09:00 pm
14. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
• Alternative Education (Karen Wilkinson)
• Number of Students by Exceptionality and Grade/Gender (March)
• AODA (May)
• Mental Health Initiative (K. Edgar — May)
• Early Identification Needs (June)
• IEP Report Summary (Annually)
• Informal Suspension and Modified Day Data (ongoing)
• Special Education Advisory Committee Priorities (Standing Item)
• Draft IEP Resources
• Creating a Survey for Gifted Program (D. Ensing)
• Board Improvement Plan for Student Achievement (March - M. Deman)
15. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 2:38 p.m. by motion.
JOYCE BENNETT
CHAIRPERSON
REPORT OF THE TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE
MEMBERS PRESENT
J. Bennett R. Campbell
R. Tisdale (ex -officio; +2:38)
Regrets: C. Goodall
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
The agenda was approved by motion.
2. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST - none declared
3. ELECTION OF CHAIR
The following motion was moved and carried:
2015 February 10
2:35 p.m. — 4:07 p.m.
ADMINISTRATION AND.OTHERS
L. Elliott C. Beal
J. Berkin M. Heath
B. Williams R. Readings
That trustee Rob Campbell be elected Chairperson of the. Transportation Advisory
Committee for the term ending 2015 November 30.
4. REVIEW OF MAXIMUM RIDE TIME DATA -
STS General Manager M. Heath and Service Development Manager, R. Readings were welcomed
to the meeting. Information was provided on the maximum ride time data for all students eligible
based on board policy provisions to board -designated school and based on student home address.
STS was requested to provide data on the time it takes for bus transfers noting this time is not
included in the ride time data.
Middlesex secondary was identified as an area of longer bus ride times; there was a request for
data listing the schools attended by students with ride times in excessive of the maximum.
5. REVIEW OF SERVICE AGREEMENT
Supt. C. Beal provided a copy of the current Service Agreement with STS noting it is posted to the
website. The agreement serves as the contract between STS and TVDSB. It was confirmed the
Service Agreements with the two Boards are identical in content.
Discussion centered on the content of the Service Agreement and whether additional service
delivery standards needed to be incorporated. The challenge of having differentiating service
standards between boards was highlighted. M. Heath spoke to the equity of service delivery
standards, such as travel to bus stops, between the two Boards.
The potential to include specialty programs in the service agreement was identified. M. Heath was
asked to provide the cost for bussing of students to TVDSB specialty programs.
M. Heath provided an update on the status of the STS -led initiative focused at reviewing conditional
bussing. (i.e., hazard designations).
M. Heath clarified the STS procedure regarding pick up of'students attending private and public
daycare noting they are handled similarly.
The vacant seat procedure was described noting there is not an additional cost to the Board when
dedicated TVDSB bussing is provided for the route. Shared busses typically do not have vacant
seats; if there was a vacancy the cost to bus a TVDSB student would be covered by TVDSB.
It was confirmed that STS provides.shuttle runs in the morning, lunchtime and afternoon. They do
not provide late bussing.
Recognizing service delivery standards are couched in STS policy and procedure, it was
suggested that a clause be added to the agreement noting there would be no changes to those
standards without the agreement of the Boards during the period of the contract.
The process for amending current STS policies and procedures was described noting changes are
made under the governance structure of two representative directors from each Board.
M. Heath and R. Readings were invited to attend the next meeting to continue discussions
concerning the STS Agreement.
Summative work completed by the Ad Hoc Committee regarding the Service. Agreement will be
shared at the next meeting.
6. OTHER BUSINESS - none
7. DATE AND TIME OF NEXT MEETING
The next meeting was scheduled for 2015 March 31, 1 p.m.
8. ADJOURNMENT
A motion to adjourn was approved at 4:07 p.m.
ROB CAMPBELL
Chairperson
REPORT OF THE THAMES VALLEY PARENT INVOLVEMENT COMMITTEE
MEMBERS
2015 February 12
6:32 p.m. to 8:18 p.m.
ADMINISTRATION AND OTHERS
'S. Gowdey, Co -Chair
L. Elliott, Director of Education
D. Parsons, Co -Chair (by teleconference)
J. Copeland, Thames Valley Secondary School
C. Schouw, Parent Member
Administrators' Council
S. Davis, Thames Valley Council of Home & School Associations
P. McKenzie, Superintendent
S. Thompson, Thames Valley Council of Home & School
H. Gerrits, Manager, Early Years TVDSB
Associations
B. Williams, Corporate Services
K. Shivers, Parent Member
L. Stephenson, Parent Member (+6:45)
Guests: N. Wrath- and K. Posno, St. Leonard's
'R. Tisdale, Trustee
Society
Trustee J. Bennett
Regrets:
S. Sartor, Thames Valley Administrator's Committee Elementary
D. JUtZi, Elgin St. Thomas Health Unit, Community Member
C: Schouw, Parent Member
A. Luxton-Zacher, Parent Member
Absent:
M. Boyce, Parent Member
1. CALL TO ORDER
CO -Chair S. Gowdey called the meeting to order at 6:32 p.m. in the Governor Simcoe Room of the
Education Centre.
2. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA
The agenda was approved by motion.
3. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST — none declared
4. MINUTES OF THE MEETING FROM 2014 NOVEMBER 13 - provided for information
5. BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES OF 2014 NOVEMBER 13 — none
6. ST. LEONARD'S SOCIETY
Co -Chair Gowdey welcomed N. Wrath and K. Posno from the St. Leonard's Society to present
information on their Youth Diversion and School -Based Services Team. A request will be made to St.
Leonard's Society to have the presentation posted on the TVPIC webpage.
7. PRINCIPAL PRESENTATION
Co -Chair S. Gowdey and C. Schouw reported on their 2014 December 13 presentation to principals.
Information was provided on the history, role, and funding model of TYPIC as well as efforts on how
parents are engaged. The presentation will be posted to the TYPIC website.
Discussion considered the parent involvement funding and how it is distributed., It was pointed out
that $500 it is provided to each school site, .not each School Council. However, the TVDSB trustees
passed a motion so that each School Council is to receive'the $500. Questions were raised
regarding access to funding by other parent groups.
Suggested edits to the presentation were captured by Co -Chair Gowdey.
8. DONATION OF 200 FRENCH BOOKS TO TVDSB
Co -Chair Gowdey reported on the donation of 200 French books to TVDSB from Frontier College.
Books will be distributed among the ten French Immersion schools in Thames Valley and are
intended to be given directly to students.
9. ROADMAP TO SUCCESS
Co -Chair Gowdey referred to the final report on the 2014 October 22/23 Roadmap to Success event.
The report provided information on event expenses. Co -Chair Gowdey shared some of the feedback
received from participants.
Committee members were invited to think about joining the planning group for next year.
10. TWITTER ACCOUNT
Co -Chair Gowdey reported the TVPIC Twitter account (#thamesvalleypic) is up and being monitored
by Co -Chair D. Parsons. Currently there are 49 followers. Postings are to relate to parent
engagement information and activities. The TVDSB Corporate Guide to Social Media was provided
with the agenda package
11. DRAFT TVDSB 2015-2016 SCHOOL YEAR CALENDAR
Co -Chair Gowdey referenced the draft 2015-2016 School Year Calendars provided in the agenda,
package. Calendars were posted to the TVDSB website for public input.
12. CANADIAN ANTI SPAM LEGISLATION
Supervisor B. Williams shared for information and feedback draft communication intended for School
Councils regarding Canada's Anti -Spam Legislation (CASL).
Through discussion it was determined that the information would be useful for School Councils.
Members offered to share the draft document with their School Councils. Feedback will be brought
back to the next meeting for further discussion.
13. TVPIC DRAFT BYLAWS
Co -Chair Parsons presented for approval amendments to the TYPIC Operational Framework.
An additional wording changed was made on page 2, under Establishment to read "TYPIC is a
statutory committee of the Thames Valley District School Board."
The following motion was moved and carried:
That the amendments to the TVPIC Operational Framework be approved.
14. PARENT REACHING OUT GRANT WORKSHOP
Co -Chair Gowdey noted that information regarding the criteria and application process for the Parent
Reaching Out Grants have yet to be posted by the Ministry.
It was agreed the Grant workshop be postponed to April. April .24 and 25 were identified as dates to
avoid. Co -Chair Gowdey offered to schedule the workshop through a Doodle poll.
15. MEMEBERSHIP
It was reported that TVPIC has openings for three parent members; two from Oxford County and
from Middlesex County. It was suggested that Principals in those schools be approached to have
them identify parent leaders in' the school.
Through discussion it was determined that parent leaders need not have experience on the Executive
of a School Council.
As a result of the discussion a motion to reconsider the previous motion to approve the bylaws was
carried.
The sentence "have Executive School Council leadership experience at the school level" was
amended to read: "have School Council experience at the school- level.
The following motion was moved and carried.
That the amendments to the TYPIC Operational Framework be approved.
It was further suggested that future meetings be held in Oxford and Middlesex Counties to facilitate
attendance. The ability to participate by teleconference was considered to be valuable.
16. PARENT ENHANCEMENT FUND COMMITTEE REPORT
Co -Chair Gowdey reported that she, D. Parsons, and C. Schouw met to review applications for the
Parent Enhancement Fund. Most were approved and a few need additional information. One of the
important eligibility criteria was whether the initiative could be duplicated.
Letters will go out to applicants early next week. The committee will bring forward a follow up report
at the next meeting.
17. DRAFT ANNUAL REPORT
Co -Chair Gowdey presented for approval the TVPIC 2013-2014 Annual Report. Suggested edits to
the report were captured by S. Gowdey.
The following motion was moved and carried:
That the TVPIC 2013-2014 Annual Report as amended be approved.
18. HEALTH CURRICULUM TELECONFERENCE
Co -Chair Gowdey shared information on a teleconference hosted 2014 February 4 concerning the
Health and Physical Education Curriculum. A number of TYPIC members were in attendance along
with Supts. D. Macpherson and P. McKenzie; and Director L. Elliott.
Director Elliott provided additional information noting she received communication earlier this evening
calling Directors to a meeting next Friday regarding the new curriculum. The meeting is being called
to share information concerning key changes to the curriculum and the implementation plans.
19. MEMBER UPDATE FROM TVDSB REPRESENTATIVES
a. Director of Education
Director Elliott circulated a written report highlighting key initiatives and activities. The recent
Be a Champ event was highlighted.
Director Elliott welcomed Supt. P. MacKenzie to his new role.
Co -Chair Gowdey announced that information regarding the 2015 March 7 safe media
workshop will be going out early next week through flyers home to parents and the TVPIC
newsletter. Registration will be online.
b. Trustee
Trustee Chair R. Tisdale was welcomed as the new Trustee member representative on the
committee.
Trustee Tisdale provided a brief backgrounder on the 34 -credit policy of the Ministry noting
TVDSB high credit students will be able to attend their regular high school. The presentation
and decision by trustees may be found on the 2015 January 27 public Board meeting You
Tube feed.
Trustee Tisdale further reported the Board- received. a presentation from. Administration on
Environmental Education initiatives at the 2015 February 10 meeting. It also is accessible on
You Tube.
Trustee Tisdale acknowledged the four new Trustees to the Board: Phil Schuyler, Chris
Goodall, Arlene Morell, and Jake Skinner.
20. CORRESPONDENCE
a. Parent Involvement Committee 6th Annual PIC 'Symposium,
Correspondence was received from the Ministry of Education regarding the 6th Annual PIC
Symposium in Toronto on 2015 April 24 and 25. Two parent members are invited to attend the
conference. Anyone wishing to attend is asked to contact the Co -Chairs.
21. NEW BUSINESS
a. TVPIC Materials
Discussion considered the purchase of additional journals for use by School Councils and TVPIC.
There are 75 in stock. The cost is approximately $6 each.
The following motion was.moved and carried:
That 500 journals be purchased.
There was a suggestion that an effort be made to promote the availability of TVPIC items to
School Councils with the possibility they could be ordered online through the webpage. It further
was suggested -that more cost-effective items, such as pens, be considered for the future.
22. COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT UPDATES
a._ Award of Distinction
The committee is meeting 2015 March 4-5 to review applications. The awards ceremony is
scheduled for 2015 May 5. S. Gowdey will attend on behalf of TVPIC.
b. Active & Safe Routes to School
The committee currently is in the process of developing the Terms of Reference and Work plan.
c. Community Partners - none
d. Education Week — none
e. Environmental Education Management
• All Outdoor funding is being used.
• There are 30 eco schools.
• The committee received information on the Waste Reduction Initiatives.
f. Parent Inclusion Sub Committee
This committee is no longer active.
g.. Public Affairs & Communication
A meeting is scheduled for 2015 March.
h. Think About It
The Committee is meeting next week. L. Stephenson will bring their pamphlets to the next
meeting. She noted they have revamped their website and logo and are focusing efforts on
creating materials for parents concerning drugs. They also are interested in holding webinars
and see this as a possible partnership with TVPIC.
I. Thames Valley Administrators' Committee —Elementary -none
j. Thames Valley Secondary School Administrators' Council
Principal J. Copeland reported on the International Principal Forum that was held for the
purposes of developing recruitment strategies for international students. The Forum also was
attended by TVDSB International Business Development Officer S. Noad. Principal Copeland
further reported on a Mandarin paper produced in London. An upcoming edition will profile three
international students from Medway..
The following dates and activities were highlighted:
• 2015 March 26 — Ontario Secondary School Literacy Testing.
• 2015 April 17 — Professional learning focused on Numeracy in the morning and School
Improvement Plans in the afternoon.
23. FUTURE MEETING DATES
Thursday, April 9 05:30pm-06:30 pm - Parkside Collegiate Institute, St. Thomas (dinner provided at 5 pm)
Thursday, May 14 06:30pm708:30 pm - Governor Simcoe Room at the Education Centre
Thursday, June 11 06:30pm-08:30 pm - Governor Simcoe Room at the Education Centre
24. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
• Fundraising FAQ's (from May 2014)
• Internal Audits (from May 2013)
25. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8:18 p.m. by motion.
RECOMMENDATIONS: None
S.GOWDEY & D. PARSONS
CO-CHAIRS
REPORT OF THE CHAIR'S COMMITTEE
2015 February 17
11:10 a.m. —1:30 p.m.
MEMBERS ADMINISTRATION AND OTHERS
J. Bennett B. McKinnon
R. Tisdale (Chair) L. Elliott B. Williams
S. Spindler (-12:15) J. Pratt (-1:05)
Trustee Non -Members:
R. Campbell (-12:15), J. Todd (-12:15)
Regrets: M. Reid
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
A motion to approve the agenda was carried.
2. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST - none declared
3. REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF 2015 FEBRUARY 24 BOARD AGENDAS
The in camera and public agendas for the 2015 February 24 Board meeting were reviewed and
updated.
4. IN CAMERA
A motion to move in camera to discuss legal matters was carried at 11:10 a.m. The committee
reconvened in public session at 12:15 p.m.
A motion to move in camera to discuss personal matters was carried at 12-.35 p.m. The
committee reconvened in public session at 1:05 p.m.
5. CORRESPONDENCE — none
6. NAMING COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP - CONSOLIDATED BISHOP TOWNSHEND/LORNE
AVENUE P.S.
The following recommendation was moved and carried:
That Trustees P. Jaffe and M. Reid be appointed to the Naming Committee
Membership for the Consolidated Bishop Townshend/Lorne Avenue P.S.
7. UPCOMING EVENTS/INITATIVES
The following system events and initiatives have been scheduled:
• It Matters to Us! FNMI conference at Western — 2015 March 10
• Variety Is — 2015 April 30.
8. OTHER BUSINESS
a. .2015 MARCH 10 BOARD MEETING
The 2015 March 10 public Board meeting was cancelled to allow all Trustees to attend the
First Nations event. The scheduling of the.ln Camera meeting is to be determined.
9. DATE AND TIME OF NEXT MEETING
The meeting schedule for Chair's is as follows:
March 3, 3:00 p.m. March 24,12:00 p.m. April 7, 3:00 p.m. April 22, 3:00 p.m..
May 5, 3:00 p.m. May 19,12:00 p.m. June 2, 3:00 p.m. June 16, 12:00 p.m.
10. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 1:30 p.m. by motion.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. That Trustees P. Jaffe and M. Reid be appointed to the Naming Committee Membership for
the Consolidated Bishop Townshend/Lorne Avenue P.S.
RUTH TISDALE
Chairperson