Untitled Document

Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy,
Issue #99, January 28, 2010.

Learning French as a Second Official Language:
Reserved for Anglophones? 1

Callie Mady, Nipissing University,
and Miles Turnbull, University of Prince Edward Island

Immigration is the single most significant contributing factor to growth in the Canadian population. In fact, in recent years, immigration has accounted for two-thirds of Canada’s population growth. The vast majority of today’s Allophones, close to 90%, (Canadian School Boards Association, 2006; Ontario Public School Boards, 2005) come from countries where neither French nor English is the first language. The former commissioner of Official Languages, Dyane Adam (Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, 1999), posited that such a diverse influx of immigrants presents a challenge to the linguistic duality of Canada—one of the federal government’s identified characteristics of Canadian identity. Yet, voices from those diverse groups heard in two discussion forums offered by the present Commissioner of Official Languages, Graham Fraser, suggest that the challenge to official language duality comes not from the groups themselves, as they support official language duality, but from the lack of access to French-language learning opportunities in English-dominant areas across Canada (Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, 2007). The majority of the participating focus groups identified official language bilingualism as a Canadian value that was complementary to cultural diversity. The participant groups acknowledged official language bilingualism as advantageous for the allophone community to enhance integration, social and economic mobility, and citizen participation.

This article provides a review and an analysis of current federal language policies, provincial and territorial curriculum documents, and their implementation across Canada as they relate to Allophones and their access to in-school French-language learning opportunities. English and French second official language documents are examined for specific attention given to allophone issues. In particular, English and French second official language documents from English-dominant provinces were examined with respect to references to the inclusion or exclusion of allophone students in second official language study. In areas where learning French is obligatory at school and there is a great influx of immigrants in this area, our analyses reveal that allophone students are often excluded from in-school French-language learning opportunities. This exclusion may prevent Allophones from developing knowledge of both of Canada’s official languages, whereas the potential exists for them to not only support linguistic duality and bilingualism but also derive personal benefit from the economic and socio-cultural opportunities provided by official language bilingualism. Multilingual acquisition theory (Aronin, 2005; Cenoz, 2003) and empirical studies in the field of multilingualism (Griessler, 2001; Keshavarz & Astaneh, 2004) lend support to the principle that bilinguals have advantages in additional language learning. Within the Canadian context, Mady (2007) showed that allophone students outperformed Canadian-born students on a number of measures of French proficiency despite their more limited exposure to French. With a similar allophone population, Carr (2009) demonstrated that Allophones’ knowledge of French positively impacted their learning of English. Such academic benefits are of particular importance given Allophones’ struggles in other areas of the curriculum (Simons & Connelly, 2000). Inclusion of Allophones in in-school French-language learning opportunities could also provide for the integration of two of Canada’s distinguishing features: linguistic duality and cultural diversity.

Since language policy in Canada falls under federal jurisdiction and educational policy falls under provincial and territorial jurisdiction, federal, provincial and territorial documents were analysed for the purpose of this paper. Federally, publications from the Commissioner of Official Languages, Canadian Department of Heritage and its Official Languages in Education program were analysed. Provincial and territorial French as a Second Official Language (FSOL) and English as a Second Official Language (ESOL) curriculum documents were analysed for reference to Allophones in French-language learning opportunities. Standard document analysis methods (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005, p. 782) were employed. References to Allophones were identified in the FSOL documents using the following keywords: Allophones, English as a Second Language, English as an Additional Language, English language learners, immigrants, and new Canadians. References to French-language learning as it pertains to Allophones in the FSOL documents were identified using the following key words: French, second language learning, and additional language learning. Qualitative content analysis was applied to all excerpts of the texts identified.

Language policy in Canada is created federally. In recognition of the importance of language in building national solidarity and identity, the federal government passed The Official Languages Act (1969), an outcome of The Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism that recognized equality of status for French and English in Canada. The overall goal of granting this equality status was to protect linguistic minority communities in Canada. Whereas the Act did not address the spread of French and English in itself, the federal government, through The Department of Canadian Heritage, established the Official Languages in Education program (1970) to financially support provincial and territorial efforts to enhance second official language learning opportunities. Federal recognition of the importance of education in the spread of Canada’s official languages remains pertinent as revealed in the federal government’s policy statement The Next Act: New Momentum for Canada’s Linguistic Duality (2003). In support of second official language learning, the federal government increased funding to the provinces and territories with a view to doubling the proportion of secondary school graduates with a functional knowledge of their second official language. With this goal in mind, the funds were targeted to improve core French/English, revitalize immersion, provide bilingual graduates the opportunity to put their skills to good use, and increase the number of qualified teachers for official language education. The federal government has since reiterated its commitment to and financial support for official language learning in The Roadmap for Canada's Linguistic Duality 2008-2013: Acting for the Future.

This analysis of federal documents, from the foundation of the Official Languages Act to the present, revealed that reference to opportunities for Allophones to learn both official languages is absent. The Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism (1967) and The Multiculturalism Act (1985), for example, limited the government’s assistance to facilitate immigrants’ learning of one of Canada’s official languages, but not both. In English Canada, immigrants must learn English, but their access to also learn French at school is not guaranteed by federal policy documents. Such limitations continue to this day; The Next Act, for example, limits its description of improved access to linguistic duality to Anglophones and Francophones as it seeks to double the proportion of bilingual graduates.

“Today, the proportion of bilingual Francophones and Anglophones in the 15 to 19 age group is around 24%. The objective of the Action Plan is to raise this proportion to 50% by 2013” (Privy council, 2003, p. 27). Limiting official language bilingualism to Anglophones and Francophones (disregarding Allophones) would make it difficult, if not impossible, to double the proportion of students studying French. Moreover, The Roadmap for Canada’s Linguistic Duality 2008-2013 (Department of Canadian Heritage, 2008), does not address any more clearly than previous policy whether allophone students may be required to or encouraged to study both official languages. Given that the federal government claims that linguistic duality is part of the Canadian identity, it is surprising that it does not explicitly include Allophones in policy on second official language learning. Similarly, given that the federal government states that cultural diversity is also a core Canadian value, it is puzzling that it does not clearly encourage the interaction of cultural diversity with linguistic duality.

Such silence with regard to official language bilingualism for Allophones is contrary to the federal commitment to promote linguistic duality and bilingualism particularly given that 95% of allophone Canadians believe that it is important for their children to learn a language other than English (Parkin & Turcotte, 2003). As it pertains to official language bilingualism in particular, Allophones were more supportive of such bilingualism than Anglophones. Parkin and Turcotte linked Allophones’ support for official language bilingualism to their complementary support for multiculturalism. The federal government’s disregard for the allophone population with regard to official language bilingualism policy is especially perplexing given that this issue has been explicitly highlighted by Canadian Commissioners of Official Languages. For example, Dyane Adam highlighted the need for the federal government to integrate linguistic duality and cultural diversity for the benefit of Allophones (Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, 2006). Similarly, the present Commissioner of Official Languages, Graham Fraser, recognizes the desire of Allophones to become official language bilingual and that in addition to encouraging a response to Adam’s 2006 recommendation, he encourages the federal government to place greater importance on promoting linguistic duality for newcomers to Canada. At present, it remains, as per this federal document analysis, that there are no federal policies or programs that provide Allophones with the opportunity to learn both official languages.

While Canada is an officially bilingual country, all of its provinces and territories, with the exception of New Brunswick, are not. As indicated above, language policy is created federally in Canada, while education (including the provision for classroom second language learning opportunities) is a provincial or territorial responsibility. With regard to in-school French-language learning opportunities in particular, French is an obligatory area of study in six provinces, but optional elsewhere. The analysis of FSOL and ESOL curriculum documents (see Table for a summary of provincial and territorial FSOL policies across Canada) in the English-dominant provinces and territories across Canada, including New Brunswick, revealed little reference to and an absence of direct policies and specific programs that ensure allophone students’ access to learn FSOL.

British Columbia and the Yukon. In British Columbia and the Yukon, all boards of education must offer a second language (French being among those languages offered) from Grades 5 to 8. According to their Language Education Policy (1997), all students must study a second language; however, schools can choose to withdraw students and deny them access to FSOL programs as per the order (Province of British Columbia, 2001, p. 7):

All Anglophones, with the exception of those with learning difficulties, then would have the option to learn French in British Columbia. All Allophones, however, can be granted an exemption from this opportunity. There is no mention of Allophones in the British Columbia French Immersion policy document that dates back to 1996 when immigration was not such a significant reality in this province or in Canada.

Alberta, Northwest Territories, and Nunavut. The Ministry of Education in Alberta, Alberta Education formally Alberta Learning, (also providing French curriculum to the Northwest Territories and Nunavut) announced the plan to make second language learning obligatory in 2004, but has since chosen not to implement that policy citing the lack of readiness in some jurisdictions. Given the optional nature of French study, then, it is not surprising that the issue of including Allophones in FSOL is absent in the FSOL (2005) and ESOL (1997) curriculum documents. Although there is not the same need to address issues of inclusion where French study is optional, it is encouraging to note that Alberta Education recognizes the multifaceted potential French could offer allophone students in the document French as a Second Language: Nine Year Program of Study: Guide to Implementation (2008) when it states,

Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Similar to Alberta, the study of French is optional in Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Such optional study may therefore explain the lack of reference to access to core French-language learning opportunities for Allophones in either province’s core French or ESOL documents. Manitoba, in French immersion in Manitoba: A handbook for school leaders (Manitoba Education, Citizenship and Youth, 2007), however, recognizes not only the potential but the benefit for English language learners to be in French immersion:

Ontario. The English-dominant provinces east of Manitoba, including New Brunswick, include French as a compulsory subject of study in school curriculum: from Grades 4 to 9 in Ontario, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island, and from Grades 4 to 10 in New Brunswick. Whereas some provinces are beginning to consider how to program for allophone students, in Ontario, limited access to FSOL for allophone students has been evident for many years.The Report of the Royal Commission on Learning (RCOL) (Ontario Ministry of Education, 1994) conveyed concerns about lost opportunities for minorities: “too many of their children are failing, are in special education or non-university streams or are dropping out of school” (Vol. IV, p. 90). The report of the RCOL did not include allophone students in the discussion of official language learning. Indeed, it stated that French was obligatory only for Anglophones, whereas the school system was responsible to help allophone students to learn only one official language (Vol. II, p. 102). Eleven years hence, the Ontario Position Paper on Second Language Learning (2005) recognizes the importance of the educational system to prepare these students for successful transition into Canadian society but highlights the support for acquisition of one official language, not both:

Whereas this position paper recognizes that allophone students lag behind in school, it does not suggest/require additional language learning opportunities as a means to help bridge the gaps.

In Ontario, both core FSOL and ESOL policy documents allow provisions that can prevent allophone students from learning FSOL or ESOL. The ESOL document (1999), for example, allows that allophone students be withdrawn from the regular classroom program, including FSOL, for additional and intensive support in English (p. 12). Moreover, this ESOL document provides for granting equivalency credits, which allows an allophone student to graduate without ever taking the “obligatory” FSOL credit in secondary school. The lack of introductory FSOL curriculum (Ontario Ministry of Education, 1998) at the secondary level is another impediment to including allophone students into FSOL, which therefore forces allophone students to adopt English as their only official language in a region that obliges anglophone students to study FSOL.

Although exclusion of Allophones from French immersion is not mentioned in the provincial French immersion document in Ontario, handbooks for administrators of one of the largest school boards in Ontario (Wagner, 2003) encourage administrators to prioritize English language learners’ need to learn English in that jurisdiction prior to considering their enrolment in French immersion.

New Brunswick. Although an opportunity afforded to all anglophone students in New Brunswick through mandatory study of French, the use of FSOL as a means to enhance allophone students’ education is also absent from New Brunswick’s French curriculum document, although this document is very dated (New Brunswick Department of Education, 1989). In addition, the following citation from their Resource Guide for Educators of English Second Language Learners (1996) recommends the study of subjects other than French:

Newfoundland and Labrador. Where French is an obligatory area of study for Anglophones, Newfoundland and Labrador make no reference to allophone students studying French in their core FSOL documents or in their three ESOL curriculum documents. Yet, the French Immersion document (2005) limits the study of French to Anglophones with the following citation: “The French immersion program is designed for English-speaking students” (Newfoundland and Labrador, 2005, p. 7).

Nova Scotia. Nova Scotia does not yet have an ESOL document, but the core (1998) and immersion (2006) FSOL documents make no mention of allophone students in French-language learning programs.

Prince Edward Island. Similarly, the Ministry of Education for Prince Edward Island makes no direct reference to allophone students in their French documents, core (2000) or immersion. Yet, suggested use of strategies in the core French document (2000), for example, limit language comparisons to those between French and English, ignoring possible other dominant languages and their utility in the classroom:

Beyond the curriculum documents themselves, Canadian Parents for French (CPF) (2006), a national network of volunteers dedicated to the promotion and creation of French second official language learning opportunities for young Canadians, evaluated the provincial and territorial action plans for FSOL in provinces across Canada and indicated that a plan for successful integration of allophone students in FSOL was also lacking in the most recent provincial and territorial Action Plans for Official Languages (2005–2009). CPF investigated specifically whether provinces had a policy to make FSOL accessible to allophone students. Among the CPF branches, only British Columbia’s identified the inclusion of allophone students in FSOL as an issue for this province. The BC CPF branch expressed concern that allophone students make up only a small percentage of the students in immersion and core FSOL and also highlighted that immigrants who arrive during their secondary school career have no access to FSOL. In its final assessment of the Action Plans, CPF highlighted the need to address the access to FSOL for allophone students in Alberta, British Columbia, New Brunswick, Ontario, and Saskatchewan.

In summary, it is worthy of note that the two English-dominant provinces that receive the majority of immigrants, British Columbia and Ontario, are also the provinces that provide means by which allophone students can be exempt from learning FSOL. This exemption legitimates the belief that these Allophones need to focus principally on learning English. Moreover, the remaining provinces and territories do not have policies that ensure the inclusion of allophone students in FSOL classes.

Although there is no explicit exclusion of allophone students from the immersion program in the provincial/territorial documents, this may be due to the optional nature of French immersion programs. Nevertheless, where multiple points at which students can enter French immersion (e.g., Grades 1, 4, and 7) may offer additional choices to anglophone Canadian-born students, restricting entry points to certain Grades may limit access for Allophones who may arrive at different points in their education.

Overall, across most of Canada, allophone students’ access to FSOL opportunities is limited. Saskatchewan, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Prince Edward Island make no reference to the needs of allophone learners in second official language contexts. Where the needs of allophone students are considered, there is discrepancy. While British Columbia, Yukon Territory, Ontario, and New Brunswick have official policies for allophone students that allow for exemption from studying French, Alberta, the Northwest Territories, Nunavut and Manitoba recognize the potential opportunity for Allophones to study FSOL. Where allophone students are struggling to succeed in other subject areas within the Canadian school system, it could prove advantageous to consider French as an opportunity for allophone students to meet with some success at school.

A limited amount of research into the implementation of provincial policies has revealed a variety of practices regarding the inclusion of allophones students in the study of French. Taaffe, Maguire, and Pringle (1996) and Mady (2006), for example, provide evidence that, even though French is a compulsory subject in Ontario, allophone students are often excluded from FSOL programs. In their 3-year longitudinal study of additional language education for minority children, Taaffe et al. (1996) unveiled a variety of practices regarding the inclusion of allophone students in the study of French within English primary schools in Ottawa and Montreal school boards. The practices ranged from withdrawal of allophone students from French to an insistence that all students attend FSOL classes. When allophone students did participate in the core French program, Taaffe et al. found that these students performed as well as their anglophone peers. Likewise, Mady (2006), in a survey of principals and guidance department heads of a large urban school board in Ontario, found that none of the secondary schools that offered ESOL courses provided FSOL for all of their allophone students. A majority of the participants (54%) reported that they never allowed allophone students to study FSOL whereas the remaining 46% stated that allophone students would sometimes be included in the FSOL program. Where allophone students were included in FSOL, the administrators recognized that they performed at least as well as their Canadian-born peers. These research results provide further evidence that exclusion is practised even in areas where French is an “obligatory” subject of study. Such exclusionary practices are contrary to allophone students’ demonstrated ability in FSOL (Calman & Daniel, 1989; Carr, 2009; Mady, 2006) and desire (Dagenais & Berron, 2001; Mady, 2003) to learn their second official language.

Discussion.2 Given that French and English are part of what it means to be Canadian as defined by the federal government and that being proficient in both official languages comes with certain social and economic advantages, Canadian leaders, federally and provincially, have a moral and ethical responsibility to ensure that ALL Canadians have equitable access to learning both of Canada’s official languages. Denying Allophones’ access to FSOL programming, in some provinces, can deny them important capital (Norton, 2000) for achieving success in Canadian schools and in our society. To increase Allophones access to FSOL programming, and in doing so, support Canadian government initiatives and goals related to linguistic duality and official bilingualism, federal and provincial/territorial policies need to adopt a position that is grounded in multilingual research which supports official language bilingualism for Allophones as an opportunity, rather than a challenge or obstacle.

Research shows that it can be beneficial for allophone students to have access to FLS learning opportunities. First and foremost, access to second official language training responds to the immigrant communities’ own desires to become bilingual in both official languages (Dagenais & Berron, 2000; Mady, 2003; Mady & Turnbull, 2007; Parkin & Turcotte, 2003). In addition, such occasions allow Allophones to profit from official language bilingualism in Canada, providing Allophones the right and ability to participate fully in society. In addition to future opportunities, research shows that Allophones can meet with success in FSOL programs where they may have difficulty in other areas of the school curriculum (Mady, 2007). The success allophone students have in learning French, which is not dependent on English, may therefore provide a means for the school communities to address the failure of minority students to succeed academically (Ontario Ministry of Education, 1994). Not only do allophone students meet with success in studying French, it has been shown that intensive exposure to French can also enhance their English skill development (Carr, 2007). Lastly, access to FSOL learning also provides allophone students with access to second language teachers who understand and are prepared to meet the needs of language learners. Simons and Connelly (2000) claim that the failure of many allophone students is in part due to classroom teachers who do not understand second language development and are therefore not prepared to meet the needs of language learners.

In addition to being of potential benefit to the students, including allophone students in second official language learning can also support federal government policy and initiatives: (a) providing Allophones with opportunities to learn both of their second official language supports the federal government’s obligation and desire to enhance the use of French and English in Canada; (b) providing second official language learning opportunities for Allophones also upholds the federal government’s commitment to promote linguistic duality. The Action Plan for Official Languages in Canada (2003) (and the subsequent Roadmap for Canada’s Linguistic Duality 2008-2013 (Department of Canadian Heritage, 2008)), for example, recognize that education is one way to make the two official languages available to all Canadians.

The current state of research related to educational policy and FSOL for Allophones is in its infancy. Moreover, most of the research that has been conducted thus far has occurred in large urban centres where many Allophones live in concentrated urban areas. Yet, immigration patterns are shifting in Canada. Less densely populated areas of the country are also facing challenges in significantly different contexts. Additional research is necessary to provide evidence to certain stakeholders that a convergence of linguistic duality with cultural diversity is beneficial to all Canadians. Information needs to be disseminated in order to dispel common myths associated with learning additional languages so that decisions to include or exclude Allophones from learning French can be based on well-grounded evidence.

1. We are grateful to Sylvie Lamoureux for her valuable assistance with the data collection and analysis for this project. We are indebted to the SSHRC Virtual Scholar in Residence for Official Languages program for funding to complete this project. The comments of three anonymous reviewers also pushed us to make this article better.

2. Parts of the discussion section are part of a paper, Mady (2008), previously commissioned by Canadian Parents for French and used with their permission.

Alberta Education. (1997). English as a second language. Edmonton: Alberta Education Curriculum Standards Branch.

Alberta Education. (2004). Language learning initiative. Retrieved March 30, 2006, from http://education.gov.ab.ca/news/2004/April/nr-LanguageLearning.asp

Alberta Education. (2005). French as a second language: Nine-year program of studies (Grade 4 to Grade 12). Edmonton: Author.

Alberta Education. (2008). The French as a second language nine-year program of studies guide to implementation-Grade 7 to Grade 9. Edmonton: Author.

Aronin, L. (2005). Theoretical perspectives of trilingual education. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 171, 7-22.

British Columbia Ministry of Education. (1996). K-12: French immersion program. Victoria: Author. Retrieved June 6, 2009, from: http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/policy/policies/french_immersion.htm

British Columbia Ministry of Education. (1997). Policy document: Language education policy. Victoria: Author. Retrieved June 6, 2009, from: http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/policy/policies/language_educ.htm

British Columbia Ministry of Education. (2001). Core French 5 to 12: Integrated resource package 2001. Victoria: Author. Retrieved June 6, 2009, from: http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/irp/cf512.pdf

Calman, R., & Daniel, I. (1989). A board’s eye view of core French: The North York Board of Education. In S. Lapkin (Ed.), French second language education in Canada: Empirical studies (pp. 283-325). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Canada, Canadian Heritage Department. (1985). Canadian Multiculturalism Act. Retrieved December 11, 2004, from www.pch.gc.ca/progs/multi/policy/act_e.cfm

Canada, Department of Justice. (1985). Official Languages Act [R.S. 1985, c. 31 (4th Supp.)]. Retrieved December 11, 2004, from http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/O-3.01/

Canada, Privy Council Office. (2003). The next act: New momentum for Canada’s linguistic duality. Retrieved December 11, 2004, from http://www.iigr.ca/pdf/documents/1202_The_Next_Act_New_Moment.pdf

Canada, Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. (1967). Report of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. Ottawa: Queen’s Printer.

Canadian Parents for French. (2006). The state of French second language education in Canada 2006. Ottawa: Canadian Parents for French.

Canadian School Boards Association. (2006). Canadian School Boards Association consultation paper on meeting the language learning and settlement needs of immigrant children and youth in Canada’s school systems. Retrived August, 2009, from http://www.cdnsba.org/publications/Executive%20Summary%20-%20Immigrant%20&%20Refugee%20Students.pdf

Carr, W. (2007). ESOL testing of intensive French students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Simon Fraser University, Surrey, British Columbia.

Carr, W. (2009). Intensive French in British Columbia: Costs, benefits and connections to Canada’s bilingualism ideal. Canadian Modern Language Review, 65, 787-816.

Cenoz, J. (2003). The additive effect of bilingualism on third language acquisition: A review. The International Journal of Bilingualism, 7, 71-87.

Dagenais, D., & Berron, C. (2001). Promoting multilingualism through French immersion and language maintenance in three immigrant families. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 14,142-155.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2005). The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Department of Canadian Heritage. (2008). Roadmap for Canada’s linguistic duality 2008-2013: Acting for the future. Ottawa: Author. Retrieved July, 2008, from http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/slo-ols/pubs/2008-2013_LDL/00_e.cfm

Government of Saskatchewan. (1994). Core French: A curriculum and resource guide for the elementary level. Retrieved June 6, 2009, from http://www.sasked.gov.sk.ca/docs/francais/frcore/elem/progetud/pdf/progetud.pdf

Griessler, M. (2001). The Effects of Third Language Learning on
Second Language Proficiency: An Austrian Example. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 4, 50-60.

Keshavarz, M., & Astaneh, H. (2004). The Impact of Bilinguality on the Learning of English Vocabulary as a Foreign Language (L3). Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 7, 295-302.

Mady, C. (2003). Motivation to study and investment in studying core French in secondary school: Comparing English as a second language students and Canadian-born students. Unpublished master’s thesis, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto.

Mady, C. (2006). The suitability of core French for recently arrived English-as-a-second-language adolescent immigrants. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto.

Mady, C. (2007). The suitability of core French for recently arrived adolescent immigrants to Canada. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10, 177-196.

Mady, C. (2008). Opening the doors to official language learning for Allophones. State of French as a second language education in Canada 2008. Ottawa: Canadian Parents for French.

Mady, C., & Turnbull, M. (2007). Allophones in FSL programs: An untapped resource. In M. Turnbull, The socio-cultural and socio-political realities of French second language education in Canada. Ottawa.

Manitoba Education, Citizenship and Youth. (2007). French immersion in Manitoba: A handbook for school leaders. Winnipeg: Manitoba Ministry of Education.

New Brunswick Department of Education. (1989). French second language core program elementary school curriculum guide. Fredericton: Author.

New Brunswick Department of Education. (1996). Resource guide for educators of English second language learners. Fredericton: Author.

Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Education. (2005). Français in primary French immersion : Kindergarten to Grade Three DRAFT/January 2005. St John’s: Author.

Nova Scotia Education and Culture. (1998). Program policy for French second langauge programs. Halifax: Nova Scotia Department of Education.

Nova Scotia Education and Culture. (2006). Programme d’études Français: Immersion Maternelle à la 3e année. Halifax: Nova Scotia Department of Education.

Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages. (2000). Annual Report 1999 – 2000. Ottawa: Queen’s Printer.

Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages. (2006). Annual Report 2005-2006. Ottawa: Queen’s Printer.

Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages. (2007). Discussion forum on the perspectives of Canadians of diverse backgrounds on linguistic duality: The final report (October 26, 2007). Ottawa: Queen’s Printer.

Ontario Ministry of Education. (1994). For the love of learning: Report of the Royal Commission on learning. Toronto: Publications Ontario.

Ontario Ministry of Education. (1998). The Ontario curriculum, Grades 9 and 10: French as a second language-core, extended and immersion French, 1998. Toronto: Author.

Ontario Ministry of Education. (1999). The Ontario curriculum, Grades 9 and 10: English as a second language and English literacy development, 1999. Toronto: Author.

Ontario Public School Boards’ Association. (2005). Ontario Public School Boards’ position paper on second language learning in Ontario. Toronto: Author.

Norton, B. (2000). Identity and language learning: Gender, ethnicity and educational change. London: Longman.

Parkin, A., & Turcotte, A. (2003, May). Public support for bilingualism in Canada. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of The Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism: 40 Years Later, Montréal.

Prince Edward Island Ministry of Education. (2000). Français de base: Programme d’études et guide pédagogique de la 4e à la 6e année. Charlottetown: Author.

Simons, J., & Connelly, M. (2000). Quality ESOL programs. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow.

Taaffe, R., Maguire, M., & Pringle, I. (1996). The impact of social contexts and educational policy/practice on biliteracy development: Ethnolinguistic minority children in English primary schools in Ottawa and Montreal. Journal of the CAAL, 8, 85-101.

Wagner, L. (2003). English as a second language and English literacy development: A resource manual for elementary schools. Mississauga, ON: Peel District School Board.