Trustees of the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board voted on Nov. 17 to delay making controversial changes to the early French immersion program.
Instead, trustees decided that the board — the largest in Eastern Ontario with more than 70,000 students — should conduct more consultations with parents and other members of the school community and that any changes will not be implemented until 2017 at the earliest.
Staff had recommended that changes be made in 2016, sparking an uproar from parents, teachers and principals who attended the recent meeting.
They argued that there had not been enough public consultation, and that there was insufficient evidence to suggest that the proposed changes would benefit students.
The first proposal was to increase the time spent speaking French in junior kindergarten from 20 minutes to 150 minutes, meaning both junior and senior Kindergarten would be taught 50 per cent in English and 50 per cent in French.
While parents felt this would benefit their children, they objected to the other two recommendations for an hour of English to be introduced as a subject in Grade 1 and for math lessons from Grade 1 through Grade 12 to be taught exclusively in English through all OCDSB schools, including French immersion programs.
Geri Moss-Norbury, a member of the Elmdale Public School parent-teacher council, summed up the sentiments expressed by the majority of the public who attended the Nov. 17 meeting.
“We’re disappointed in the truncated and uninformative consultation process by the board’s procedure in regards to the proposed changes to French instruction,” she said. “No data was included to support these proposals and I know there are still many parents, particularly those with young children, who are unaware of the proposals.”
Others argued that by reducing the amount of French spoken from Grade 1 to Grade 3 would water down the board’s highly regarded French immersion program.
The present model for the immersion program in the OCDSB exceeds the minimum number of French instructional hours required by the Ontario Ministry of Education by 1,746 hours.
The proposed changes were intended to create a two-year, seamless kindergarten experience, and help children make smoother transitions between all grades.
The changes were also designed to enhance equity of opportunity and access for all students to both program pathways — English and French immersion — and to ensure that both pathways provide all students with the opportunity to develop competency in both languages.
Parent Amber Steeves says the board should continue to look for changes that would benefit young learners, but nothing should be rushed into.
“While I applaud the board for looking to make changes,” she said, “these recommendations are not what we need. And I cannot understand why the language for maths would be changed to English — we should be encouraging more French not less.
According to the most recent data from Statistics Canada, about 5.8 million Canadians – 17 per cent of the country’s population – consider themselves able to conduct a conversation in both English and French, despite the fact that many federal government jobs require bilingualism.
Mary Cruden, president of the Ottawa-based advocacy group Canadian Parents for French, questioned the idea behind increasing students’ exposure to French in earlier years, and then watering down the teaching later.
“I think that more French at a younger age is a great thing,” she said. “Children who are exposed to multiple languages from a young age have been found to benefit substantially from increased exposure. But this shouldn’t come at a cost.”
She added: “The advantage you give them at a younger age will dissipate if they are exposed to the language less and less over the years. It’s called French immersion for a reason, not partial immersion.”
Another motivator behind the original recommendations was cost savings associated with the adoption of a 50/50 kindergarten model. Based on the current grant calculation, the proposed changes would have resulted in an additional $1.5 million annually in the board’s budget. The lost financial benefit made the decision to delay the implementation of changes more complicated.