Francis Bangou, University of Ottawa

Carole Fleuret, University of Ottawa

Marie-Philip Mathieu, University of Ottawa

Bianca Jeanveaux, University of Ottawa

ABSTRACT

This article presents the results of a study that documented the ways principals and teachers in Ontario’s Francophone elementary schools viewed and addressed the linguistic diversity of students enrolled in the Actualisation linguistique en français (ALF) program. The ALF program was created in Ontario to support students with limited knowledge of French in acquiring the necessary linguistic and cultural knowledge to function successfully in mainstream classrooms. Although this program has been implemented with good intentions, one element of concern remains the overall space accorded to students’ first languages within the program. Using data from semi-structured interviews conducted with five principals and 11 teachers affiliated with the ALF program, it is shown that allophone students’ first languages remain relatively marginal within the participating schools.

RÉSUMÉ

Cet article présente les résultats d’une étude qui avait pour objectif de documenter comment les directions d’école et les membres du corps enseignant des écoles élémentaires francophones de l’Ontario percevaient et prenaient en compte la diversité linguistique des élèves inscrits au programme d’Actualisation linguistique en Français (ALF). Le programme ALF a été créé en Ontario pour aider les élèves ayant une connaissance limitée du français à acquérir les connaissances culturelles et linguistiques nécessaires à leur succès dans les classes régulières. Bien que ce programme ait été mis en œuvre avec de bonnes intentions, un élément préoccupant demeure l’espace accordé aux langues premières des élèves au sein de ce programme. À l’aide des données d’entrevues semi-dirigées menées auprès de cinq directions d’école et de 11 enseignants affiliés au programme ALF, il sera démontré que les langues premières des élèves allophones demeurent relativement marginales dans les écoles participantes.

Keywords: Allophone learners, actualisation linguistique, plurilingualism.

Introduction

According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Canada has one of the largest populations of immigrant students in the world (OECD, 2019). It is not surprising, then, that linguistic diversity is also rising in Canada (Statistics Canada, 2017). In 2016, 2.4% of Canadians reported more than one first language (L1), compared to 1.9% in 2011, which is a growth of 13.2%. Moreover, 19.4% of Canadians speak more than one language at home and seven in 10 people speak a language other than French or English at home (Statistics Canada, 2017). As such, an increasing number of students in Canada are considered allophone speakers, meaning they report an L1 other than French, English, or an Indigenous language (Cavanagh et al., 2016). This nationwide demographic and linguistic shift can be seen within francophone schools in Ontario, which forces school officials to clarify their directives and strategies pertaining to allophone students’ education and inclusion.

It is in this context that the Actualisation linguistique en français (ALF) program was created in 1994 to address the needs of students who attend francophone schools in Ontario but who are speakers of English or another language at home or who have limited knowledge of French. Specifically, the ALF program aims to support designated students in acquiring the necessary linguistic and cultural knowledge to function successfully in mainstream classrooms in Ontario’s francophone schools (Ministry of Education of Ontario [MEO], 2010). Usually, students who are assigned an ALF designation meet every day with a support teacher inside or outside the classroom. Where there are sufficient numbers of students with the ALF designation, they can be grouped in a sheltered class. Although this program has been implemented in francophone schools across Ontario with good intentions, one element of concern remains the ways students’ L1s are integrated within the classrooms (Fleuret, 2020; Fleuret & Thibeault, 2016).

With that in mind, this article presents the results of a study that examined how principals and teachers in Ontario’s francophone elementary schools viewed and addressed the linguistic diversity of students enrolled in the ALF program. It will be shown that more remains to be done to integrate allophone students’ L1s within the participating schools.

Supporting Allophone Students In Ontario’s Francophone Schools

Ontario, a predominantly English-speaking province, has more than 13 million people (Statistics Canada, 2016), 4.7% of whom are French-speaking (Gérin-Lajoie, 2020; Gérin-Lajoie & Jacquet, 2008), which makes Ontario the province with the largest population of francophones outside of Quebec (Gérin-Lajoie, 2020). Given the predominance of English within the province, French is considered a minority language that must be protected from anglicization. Indeed, the history of Ontario’s francophone population has been marked by a tradition of strong activism to protect and develop Franco-Ontarian identity, language, and culture (Gérin-Lajoie, 2020; Welch, 1995). It is only since 1982 that francophone speakers in Ontario have had the right to an education in French, thanks to section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982). This section grants the right to any Canadian to be educated in the minority language (French or English) of the province of residence, making this an important step forward in the legitimization of French-language education in English-speaking provinces. Ontario’s first francophone school board was created in 1986. In 2014-2015, Ontario had eight Catholic and four public francophone school boards, and 449 French-language schools (elementary and secondary) (Sylvestre & Lévesque, 2018). In this context, “French-only” policies within Ontario’s francophone schools could be considered as materializations of the desire to protect and promote Franco-Ontarian language and culture.

Combined with this reality is the fact that, over the past ten years, there has been an increase in the number of allophone students in French-language schools as a result of immigration (Cavanagh et al., 2016). For instance, in 2006-2007, the students enrolled in Ontario’s francophone elementary and secondary schools came from 143 countries (MEO, 2009a). Currently, 15% of Ontario’s francophone population is a visible minority (i.e., a person other than Aboriginal Peoples, who is non-Caucasian and non-white) (Commissariat aux services en français de l’Ontario, 2018, as cited in Gérin-Lajoie, 2020). As such, French-language schools can no longer be considered linguistically-, culturally-, or identity-homogeneous schools (Cavanagh, et al., 2016).

In response to the increase of allophone students in Ontario’s French-language schools, the MEO has implemented various policies to facilitate their inclusion and success. One of the most significant of these policies is the Politique d’aménagement linguistique (PAL), which was launched in 2004. The PAL confirms the dual mandate of Ontario’s francophone schools to ensure both student success and the vitality of Ontario’s French-language community (MEO, 2004). Specifically, the PAL aims to improve students’ academic performance, curb anglicization, promote bilingualism, consider young people’s views on identity, and open francophone language communities to cultural diversity. However, according to Bélanger (2007), the PAL positions Franco-Ontarians as victims of assimilation without taking into consideration the increasingly heterogeneous linguistic make-up in Ontario’s francophone schools. We are, then, witnessing the social reproduction of a dominant-dominated relationship between “born” Franco-Ontarians and allophone students (Fleuret et al., 2013). More recently, Gérin-Lajoie (2020) has argued that the PAL erroneously gives the impression that students’ francophone identities can only be developed at the expense of their bilingual, multilingual, and anglophone identities.

Another significant initiative came in 1994 with the implementation of the ALF and the Perfectionnement du français (PDF) programs. The program aims to enable allophone students to be successful in francophone schools in Ontario. The PDF program aimed to support francophone newcomer students in developing the necessary linguistic and cultural competencies to pursue studies in their new learning environments. In 2010, the PDF program became the Programme d’appui aux nouveaux arrivants (PANA). The PANA program is intended for students who recently migrated from a country where French is the language of education or administration, but who cannot immediately follow the regular curriculum for linguistic, cultural, or academic reasons (MEO, 2010). Schools have the option to adopt one of the two or both programs based on their needs. Because the ALF and PANA programs have similar and overlapping objectives, schools sometimes adopt only one of the two programs (Kamano, 2014). Moreover, Gélinas Proulx et al. (2014) have shown that, broadly speaking, educators in francophone schools in Ontario have yet to develop the intercultural competence that would enable them to properly address the ethnocultural, linguistic, and religious diversity present among the students in their schools.

Ontario’s francophone community has had to struggle against assimilation into the English-speaking population and has long resisted monolingual “English-only” policies (Bélanger, 2007; Cummins, 2000). Interestingly, similar “French-only” policies are in place in many francophone schools in Ontario, in part to protect the French language and culture within the walls of the schools (Fleuret et al., 2018). Unfortunately, within such a context, it becomes particularly challenging for teachers to acquire the skills that will enable them to embrace plurilingual and inclusive teaching practices (Fleuret et al., 2018).

Theoretical Framework

Inclusive Education

For many years, the popular belief in Ontario (and across the country) was that the best way to support students with specific needs was to place them in specialized programs segregated from mainstream classrooms (Bélanger, 2011). However, since the 1990s, a movement focused on a pedagogy of inclusion has gained popularity (Bélanger, 2011). Since that time, inclusive education aims not to ask students to adapt to the standards of the majority, but rather to encourage school stakeholders to value diversity and adapt their practices to diverse learning needs (Paré & Bélanger, 2014). The Ministry of Education of Ontario defines an inclusive educator as someone who accepts and respects all students, values diversity, and ensures that every student in Ontario is represented in the curriculum and within the school environment (MEO, 2009a). Accordingly, both principals and teachers play a critical role in establishing inclusive perspectives and practices within Ontario’s schools.

Overall, as leaders within schools, principals set the tone for implementing inclusive school culture and practices, and teachers are at the forefront of implementing inclusive teaching and learning practices within classrooms (McGhie et al., 2013; Schmidt & Venet, 2012). However, even though inclusion is officially advocated in Ontario’s schools, classroom practices do not always follow the principles of inclusive education. In that regard, Gérin-Lajoie (2020) finds that Ontario’s official discourse fails to recognize the challenges faced by allophone students, and it remains based on principles that essentialize francophone identities. For instance, the way that the PAL presents the process of identity construction suggests that this process only occurs when students develop a francophone identity (Gérin-Lajoie, 2020). This discourse, then, can be a barrier to the inclusion of students who construct an identity associated with French and other languages.

Students’ First Languages

The aforementioned struggles of Ontario’s French-speaking communities against assimilation have contributed to the emergence of the desire to protect the French language and culture and the implementation of monolingual and homogenizing discourses and practices in francophone schools in Ontario. However, these practices are detrimental to the development of allophone students’ L1. Indeed, research shows that bilingual children have an advantage over monolingual children in terms of metalinguistic consciousness, reading, and non-verbal cognitive activities (Bialystok, 2017). Further, Cummins (1979) found that literacy skills acquired in a L1 are transferable into a target language when learners’ competence in their L1 has reached a threshold level.

In addition to cognitive benefits, the legitimization of L1s in the classroom could have positive emotional effects on students because language is an important marker of identity (Fleuret & Auger, 2019). For example, when students’ L1s are used as a resource in the classroom, students feel less intimidated by the target language, and parents have a more positive view of the school. Moreover, learning a target language does not come at the expense of an L1, because both languages are valued and promoted (Castellotti & Moore, 2011). In that regard, integrating plurilingual teaching practices within Ontario’s francophone schools via the ALF program could be greatly beneficial to allophone students.

Plurilingual Approaches to Languages and Cultures

According to the Council of Europe (2001), plurilingual speakers are able to communicate and function at varying degrees in different languages and cultures. Therefore, plurilingual competence should not be perceived as the separate command of multiple distinct languages, but rather as a single and complex linguistic competence that can be used in different contexts (Lörincz & de Pietro, 2011). In that regard, a plurilingual approach to languages and cultures refers to the use of more than one language or a variety of languages when teaching a subject (European Centre for Modern Languages [ECML], 2020). In 2011, a Framework of Reference for Plurilingual Approaches to Languages and Cultures (FREPA) was created by the ECML. This framework serves as a point of reference for using plurilingual approaches to support learners’ development of plurilingual and intercultural competence. The framework identifies four main plurilingual approaches. The first is the Integrated Didactic Approach, which consists of making connections between a limited number of languages taught in the school. Second is the Intercomprehension Between Related Languages, which provides learners with the space to work with several languages from the same family. Third is the approach called Awakening to Languages, which develops learners’ awareness of languages not taught in the school. Fourth is the Intercultural Approach, which focuses on the promotion of openness to others and the development of one’s understanding of diverse languages, people, and cultures (ECML, 2020). Although over 10 years have passed since the creation of the framework, it is not clear to what extent any of these approaches have been incorporated into Ontario’s French-language schools.

In light of the above, it is clear that diversity is transforming Ontario’s French speaking schools. The policies and programs in place demonstrate a desire to make the school system more inclusive. On this point, integrating plurilingual teaching practices via the ALF program shows potential for contributing to allophone students’ inclusion within Ontario’s francophone schools. It is, then, imperative to examine the ways principals and teachers within Ontario’s French-speaking schools view and address the linguistic diversity of students affiliated with the ALF program.

Research Question

Drawing from the above theoretical framework, this article is guided by the following research question: How do principals and teachers in francophone elementary schools in Ontario view and address the linguistic diversity of students enrolled in the ALF program?

Method

Recruitment of Participants

The study focused on four francophone school boards within the Ottawa and Toronto regions; these cities were chosen because they have the largest immigrant population in Ontario (Statistics Canada, 2017). After obtaining ethics approval from the selected school boards, consent forms were distributed in elementary schools to principals and teachers affiliated with the ALF program. Five principals and eleven teachers agreed to take part in the study. Their distribution is shown in Table 1 below.

	Principals (n)	Teachers (n)
School Board 1	2	6
School Board 2	2	2
School Board 3	1	1
School Board 4	0	2
Total	5	11

Table 1: Distribution of participants according to school boards

Data Collection

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with participants to identify their views and educational practices (See Appendix for full interview protocol). For instance, participants were asked to describe what they usually do when a student speaks a language other than French in the classroom. Participants were also asked to explain how they usually take cultural diversity into account in their educational practices. The interview protocols included 16 questions and lasted about 20 minutes each. They took place on the phone because that offered more flexibility to the participants. Audio recordings were made of interviews, which were then transcribed in their entirety by a research assistant.

Data Analysis Procedures

After collecting the data, we developed a data analysis procedure that ensured the nuances and complexity of the participants’ responses were preserved (Lawrence-Lightfoot & Hoffmann Davis, 1997). The data associated with each case was carefully reviewed, and a code list was created from our interview protocols. We then conducted an intra-content analysis (i.e., analysis within-participant but across interview questions) to highlight emerging themes. Lastly, to identify common themes, an inter-content analysis (i.e., analysis across participants) was carried out.

Results

This section presents the findings associated with the research question that guides this study. We start with the results from the analysis of the principals’ interviews, then we consider the results from the analysis of the teachers’ interviews. All quotes from participants are translations from the original French.

Principals

All participating principals believed that part of their role was to support and guide ALF teachers, as illustrated by the following quote from the principal in School Board 3: “My role is as a resource person, I would say. A contact person who will help and guide them [the teachers].” In this case, the support was described as helping and guiding ALF teachers. Of particular relevance to this article, a principal in School Board 1 indicated that their role was to promote ALF students’ bilingualism because in their school most of these students came from Anglo-dominant homes: “My role as a director is to promote bilingualism, because we know that these children come from families [who are] Anglo-dominants, so… [we] are not here to convert them; we want them to learn the language and use it.” It appears, then, that for this principal, bilingualism is primarily associated with Canada’s two official languages (English and French), and not with other languages the students may be speaking. While Anglophone students seem to be in high numbers at this school, there may nevertheless be allophone students whose L1s are not taken into account.

Overall, principals believed it was important to ensure that the ALF teachers had the means to improve students’ achievement of French. Practices of positive reinforcement were, then, implemented by the principals to encourage students to communicate in French outside of the classroom, as illustrated by the following quote from a principal in School Board 1: “We must not punish them [the students]. It is not a question of punishing them, it is a matter of encouraging them. ”The principal in School Board 3 indicated that they did not want students to develop negative relationships with either their L1s or target languages: “It’s about positive reinforcement. We don’t necessarily want to punish; we don’t want the student to hate the language, one or the other [the L1 or the target language], and say that the language is not good.”

In the same vein, three participating principals rewarded students for interacting in French. For instance, a principal in School Board 2 liked to give small rewards such as stickers. The same principal also allowed students who made the most effort to speak in French during the week to go to the park on Fridays: “The students, if they have made the effort to speak French throughout the week, will go to the park for 15 minutes on Friday afternoon.”It seems likely, then, that students who did not make an effort to speak French were not allowed to go to the park. Interestingly, the School Board 3 principal also mentioned the following policy that conveys the idea that languages other than French must be silenced: “One of the rules is: French or silence. You don’t have to speak French but you can remain silent.” The principal in School Board 3 encouraged students to speak in French by making French part of a competition and offering a reward to the winner: “Last year we did a little competition through the classrooms precisely to make a positive reinforcement of spontaneous French in the school.”

Although these reward-driven practices were implemented with well-meant intentions, they indirectly punished the students who did not get a reward. On the other hand, a principal from School Board 2 indicated that instead of rewarding or punishing students, they focused on highlighting students’ efforts:

We are trying to avoid all punitive systems. I know there were systems that were in place before that were reward systems. On the other hand, as staff, we say that we do not see much purpose in rewarding students for speaking French, because it is an expectation that we have…. Like I said, rely on the positive, and then when they make an effort, we should focus on that. Other than “Why do you speak English?” or “Stop speaking English”, [it is] “Well done, you still tried”.

Although participating principals seemed to be concerned primarily with the use and development of Canada’s two official languages (English and French), it is important to note that a principal in School Board 1 indicated that they also promoted learning Spanish: “Absolutely, we have a Spanish program at our school, because when children are young, they will learn other languages.”

One reason why the focus was largely placed on French and English might be because most participating principals (four out of five) worked in schools with large populations of students for whom English seemed to be their L1. For instance, when describing the student population in their school, a principal in School Board 2 said, “Most of them are anglophones with a great dominance of English in [their] homes, in the family environment.” Another principal in the same school board indicated that, “For the most part, they are students from immigrant families, English-speaking or francophile families. It’s not French-speaking students, that’s for sure.” In this instance, it is not clear if the immigrant families they are referring to here are francophone, francophile, anglophone, or allophone. We may assume that although some of these newcomer students are able to communicate in French or English, it is quite possible that neither of these two languages was their L1. This is even more likely considering the same principal indicated having more than 20 countries represented in their school at one point. Along the same lines, a principal in School Board 1 indicated that “We have a family that speaks Tamil, but they speak very good English… We have far fewer newcomers…it’s mostly English speakers.”

Although the focus seems to be generally placed on students’ command of English and French, participating principals also recognized or celebrated to some extent the diversity of their student populations. In that regard, three participating principals indicated that they had integrated diverse cultures into their schools’ teaching programs. For instance, a principal in School Board 2 reported: “We not only address the Canadian Francophonie, but also the world’s Francophonie. ”However, not all principals took such an approach. One principal in School Board 2 reported that recognizing diversity among the student population was not necessarily something that they were doing in a specific manner, other than cultural festivals and recurrent celebration: “We have Black History Month, we celebrate various cultural festivals, we have a cultural parade, [but] it’s really not… I would say it’s not something we do in a targeted way.”

Routinely sharing customs and traditions seemed to be some principals’ preferred way to include diverse cultures into the curriculum, as illustrated by the following quote from another principal in School Board 2: “We often have potlucks with people’s different cultures, with a typical meal of their country.” Another way participating principals addressed cultures within their school is through the promotion of l’approche culturelle. For instance, a principal from School Board 1 explained, “We try to do all cultural activities, then [take] a little bit of an approche culturelle to teaching.” Indeed, the promotion of l’approche culturelle (MEO, 2009b) was a common way that participating principals addressed cultural learning within their schools. An approche culturelle aims to promote the appropriation of the Franco-Ontarian culture by infusing it as much as possible in various teaching activities.

Unfortunately, by focusing on the construction of a Franco-Ontarian identity, this approach de facto results in excluding and delegitimizingthe other cultures of students within the schools (Gérin-Lajoie, 2020). In short, when it comes to the inclusion of other cultures within the programming of francophone elementary schools in Ontario, it appears that activities are mostly focused on the promotion of the Franco-Ontarian culture, with somewhat sporadic and superficial consideration of other cultures (e.g., potlucks, cultural parades, etc.).

This situation may partly be because most participating principals admitted to having difficulty accessing training about ALF students due to lack of time and/or lack of opportunities to do so. For instance, a principal in School Board 1 said, “But since I also teach, I don’t always have time to go to an educational support [training] related to the ALF.” We should also stress that the principal in School Board 3 reported that they did receive training about the ALF program. However, they thought that the teachers in their school who were affiliated with the ALF program should also have access to this training to better prepare them to teach ALF students:

It is training that talks about the [ALF] program precisely, because it is a separate program from the regular [mainstream] program. There should also be training at the teacher level, because yes, it is good to have the ALF teacher, but in the classroom the teacher must use the ALF curriculum to evaluate the students. So, in terms of training, these teachers have the same training for regular students as for ALF students.

It appears, then, that the available ALF training focused mostly on talking about the program. Moreover, in this case, the training available to the ALF teachers did not focus on any special considerations for teaching students in the ALF program as opposed to teaching all students at the school. Like this principal, we believe this lack of ALF-specific teacher training is problematic, considering the specific requirements of these students. Next, we consider the interviews with the teachers.

Teachers

The analysis of the interviews demonstrates that most teachers in the study believed that their role is to ensure that students are able to communicate effectively in French. In the same vein, two teachers highlighted that they were models for students. One of these teachers, who taught in School Board 1, underlined how important it was to support the development of students’ bilingualism:

I believe a lot in bilingualism… that is to say, we have the job we have because we speak both languages, we speak two languages, there are even those of us who speak three, so I think it is very important to develop oral communication with young people who need models for sentence structures and who have to communicate in French.

It should be noted that this teacher also recognized that some students do speak other languages. Other teachers from other school boards also acknowledged this linguistic multiplicity. For instance, a teacher from School Board 2 said, “Most of the students I work with even speak a language other than English at home, and so they are often all trilingual, or even more.” A teacher from School Board 4 recognized that French could be a third language for the ALF students:

So who are these students who have the challenge of learning several languages at the same time? [They speak their] mother tongue at home, they necessarily have English because it is the dominant language, and then here they find themselves learning this third language, which is French.

Similarly, when the participating teachers were asked to explain how they usually reacted when a student spoke a language other than French in the classroom, most teachers reported that punishing the student would not be a good strategy. This was in part because, at the elementary level, teachers recognized the difficulty of requiring students to speak French all the time. For instance, as a teacher from School Board 1 stated, “Certainly it is accepted at certain levels, especially kindergarten…, that we cannot demand [that they speak French] 100 percent of the time… If they are unable to say something in French, they are encouraged to use gestures.”

Apparently, then, this teacher would encourage students to use gestures instead of using English. They also said that they sometimes asked them to use other words in French to explain the missing word, or they would ask other students to provide the word:

I ask their friends in the class—there is often one among the group who knows what the word is in French—or I tell them, often I ask them to use other words [in French] to explain, if the word is in French, try to use another word that can explain that word. Then, it’s to encourage them to use as much French as possible, but it is harmful if they use the English word.

Although this teacher did not necessarily punish their students for not speaking in French, she still tried to prevent students as much as possible from using English, because in her opinion it would be harmful. In the same vein, other teachers from the same school board implemented reward systems to promote the use of French. For instance, one teacher declared using toy frogs as a reward for speaking French:

They are little white frogs, and they are given during classes [when a child speaks in French], and the child walks with the white frog, so others see the white frog and want one too, so I make them speak to me in French.

Other teachers from the same school board (School Board 1) also reported that they would sometimes try to use cognates between French and English. For instance, one teacher noted, “I just wanted to say, sometimes with English and French you can make positive transfers, orange vs. orange.” This practice of positive transfers seemed to be in place in other school boards as well. For instance, a teacher from School Board 2 noted:

There are very simple words that a student might not be certain of, so I tell them okay, but that’s a cognate, and then I explain to them what it is… for example, the word hospital. Often the student will say the word hospital in a sentence in French, and I will make them recognize that it is said almost the same way, but in French it is said this way.

The teachers from School Board 4 differed from other participants in terms of their use of plurilingual approaches to teaching French. For instance, one teacher from School Board 4 said:

They encourage us not only to teach French, but to integrate the [first] languages of the students. For example, we take an object and I say the name in French, and each student will repeat it in his native language. After that, I ask the students to repeat it in the mother tongue of others. It gives a certain appreciation to the student, and also an assurance… so we work a lot on self-esteem, and the students feel accepted in the group.

Based on the analysis of teachers’ interviews, it appears that teachers in this school board were broadly encouraged to use such plurilingual approaches. For example, another teacher from the same school board talked about the resources that were provided to teachers to help them implement such approaches:

There was a kit that was made for the teachers to get to know about students’ home countries. This year I took advantage of participating in a terrific project, ELODiL [Éveil au Langage et Ouverture à la Diversité Linguistique/Awakening to Languages and Opening to linguistic diversity], so with my advisor we embarked in plurality theatre with my newcomers. We did theatre in all languages, and what is magical is that the children will make themselves understood by others, and will use French as the common language, as soon as we show them that we are open to their [first] language. We have games that are played in all languages, [and] they are no longer terrified by teachers… So I think that yes, for my teaching colleagues, there is more and more of an openness [to integrating students’ languages].

Thus, besides appreciating these plurilingual approaches to teaching, this teacher also noticed a gradual acceptance of the use of plurilingual approaches among their colleagues and positive impacts on students.

However, interview findings indicate that adopting plurilingual approaches was challenging for many reasons. For instance, one teacher from the same school board reported that some francophone parents did not appreciate such approaches because they sent their child to a francophone school primarily to speak French and not other languages:

The current situation is that we have Canadian, French-speaking parents who are going to find their children playing Arabic in the classroom, and then for those students, we have parents who change schools because they say ‘my child is there for French.’

Another teacher from a different school board noted that it can sometimes be difficult for a teacher to help students in a language the teacher does not know:

“I think that if the child does not have a language that I know, it will be difficult to help them, but if he at least knows English, which is a language that I know, then I will be able to communicate and help them.”

Although participating teachers were not always comfortable using other languages in their classrooms, they generally tried to integrate learners’ cultures in different ways. For instance, most participating teachers invited students to share their experiences and cultural references. As one teacher from School Board 4 said, “We work a lot on cultural references, so it’s to go and get a little [information…]; how do they live or how do they celebrate certain festivals, certain things according to their culture and identity.” Another teacher from School Board 4 liked to use children’s literature to get to know students’ various cultures:

That’s what I have with my colleagues in literacy, we’re moving more and more towards children’s literature, which is open to all cultures, [literature] that speaks about Africa. With ELODiL we have acquired these books, which expose students to other languages and to children’s literature that speaks precisely about the cultural diversity of tolerance. As soon as students are curious, they ask questions about cultures, practices, they do research themselves… I think it’s part of our daily practices, since it’s now easier for students to know and introduce themselves to others, to their traditions and what they do with their culture, so there is no more shutting down.

This quote suggests that, at this school, ALF students used to be uncomfortable speaking about themselves and their cultures, but using plurilingual children’s literature helped resolve this issue. Another approach the teachers used to integrate different cultures was song. For instance, a teacher from School Board 1 talked about an activity where students were invited to sing Canada’s national anthem in Tamil:

We have a family that comes from Sri Lanka and there was a talent show, and then before we started the show, we sang the national anthem in both French and Tamil to promote their culture and the words of their country, and they were really proud.

In sum, the interview findings indicate that not all principals and ALF teachers in Ontario’s French-speaking schools shared equally the goal of integrating students’ L1s and cultures. For instance, some participants used reward-driven practices to discourage students from using other languages besides French whereas other participants used children’s literature to expose students to diverse languages and cultures.

Discussion

In response to the research question which asked how principals and teachers in francophone elementary schools in Ontario viewed and addressed the linguistic diversity of students enrolled in the ALF program, it appears that most participants considered students’ linguistic diversity primarily through the lens of their mandate to protect and promote the French language and culture. Indeed, the primary goal of both principals and teachers was to ensure that students enrolled in the ALF program were able to communicate effectively in French. When other languages were considered, it was usually in terms of their capacity to enhance or hinder the acquisition of French.

In that regard, two distinct approaches emerged from the data. The first will be referred to as a monolingual approach to language teaching and learning. Within this approach, languages and cultures are learned in silos, in other words separated from other languages and cultures (Coste et al., 2009; Piccardo, 2013). As such, translation and other crosslinguistic treatments are usually perceived as threats to the “integrity” and acquisition of the target language and culture—a belief criticised in ECML (2020). Here, we can recall the participant who stated that “you don’t have to speak French but you can remain silent.” Such a perspective is usually associated with traditional approaches to language teaching and learning. The first author’s initial training as a language teacher 25 years ago was based on these principles. They were taught that translation should be avoided at all cost, and references to students’ L1s and cultures should be allowed only to promote positive transfers from the L1s to the target language. Just like some of the participants, the first author encouraged learners to use gestures when they did not know a word as well as cognates to guess the meaning of a word. At the time, language teachers had no reason to question such monolingual approaches, particularly when learners had little opportunity to use the target language outside of the classroom. As such, teaching a language consisted, in part, of providing a space where learners would communicate as much as possible in the target language. Given the long history of such a perspective—and the limited access to French language and culture in Ontario beyond the province’s francophone schools—it is not surprising that similar principles guided the practices of most of the participants in this study. However, research shows that such monolingual approaches to language teaching and learning are not inclusive and are not beneficial to language teaching and learning within plurilingual educational contexts (Cummins, 2000; Marshall & Moore, 2018).

The second approach that emerged from the data can be referred to as a plurilingual approach to language teaching and learning (Canagarajah, 2009; Coste et al., 2009). Within this approach, languages and cultures are not learned in silos, but are seen as part of a plural, complex, and integrated competence that includes all languages known by students (Candelier & Castelotti, 2013). As such, the goal of a plurilingual approach is to implement teaching and learning practices that are conducive to the use of knowledge, skills, and mindsets within the entirety of learners’ linguistic repertoires to enhance the acquisition of the target language and culture (Candelier & Castelotti, 2013). The findings indicate that such approaches are promoted in School Board 4. However, while principals’ and teachers’ opinions seem to have evolved in some cases regarding a plurilingual approach to language teaching and learning, the interview findings introduced here demonstrate that there is still a long road ahead for the implementation of inclusive plurilingual practices within the ALF program.

In particular, data revealed that sporadic and folkloric accounts of other cultures were still being used in most participating school boards (e.g., cultural festivals, international meals, etc.). Access to appropriate training also emerged as being a challenge in most cases, although School Board 4 stood out as being proactive in that regard (e.g., ELODilL). In a sign of the numerous challenges to implementing a plurilingual approach, some teachers in School Board 4 also emphasized the role of parents’ views on the mission of francophone schools and language learning. Participants reported that some parents did not appreciate when languages other than French were used in the classroom. This obstacle demonstrates the importance of considering the larger community when implementing inclusive plurilingual practices in Ontario’s francophone schools.

Conclusion

This study aimed to explore the ways that principals and teachers in Ontario’s francophone elementary schools viewed and addressed the linguistic diversity of students enrolled in the ALF program. The findings cannot be generalized to all francophone elementary schools across the province, nevertheless they raise important issues that should be considered by any school with allophone students, especially concerning the need for ALF specific training and the adaptation of teaching practices to the wider communal context. It was also clear that allophone students’ L1s remain marginalized within Ontario’s francophone schools.

Due to Franco-Ontarians’ long history with assimilation, it is difficult to reimagine Ontario’s French-speaking world as one that embraces linguistic plurality. Thus, the protectionist practices of various stakeholders (principals, teachers, parents) tend to rely on outdated monolingual teaching practices. Even in the face of these challenges, however, some participants in this study demonstrated that they have embraced inclusive plurilingual teaching and learning practices, which shows us that things are beginning to change, albeit slowly—and this is very encouraging.

References

Bélanger, N. (2007). Une école, des langues…? L’enseignement du français en milieu minoritaire en Ontario. Le français d’aujourd’hui, 3, 49–57. https://www.cairn.info/revue-le-francais-aujourd-hui-2007-3-page-49.htm

Bélanger, N. (2011). Une éducation inclusive : étude de cas multiples. Retour sur une recherche collaborative. La nouvelle revue de l’adaptation et de la scolarisation, 3, 229–240.

Bialystok, E. (2017). L’acquisition d’une deuxième langue, le bilinguisme pendant la petite enfance et leur impact sur le développement cognitif précoce. Encyclopédie sur le développement des jeunes enfants (2nd ed.). Centre d’excellence pour le développement des jeunes enfants. https://www.enfant-encyclopedie.com/sites/default/files/textes-experts/fr/61/lacquisition-dune-deuxieme-langue-le-bilinguisme-pendant-la-petite-enfance-et-leur-impact-sur-le-developpement-cognitif-precoce.pdf

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s 23, Part I of the Constitution Act (1982), being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11.

Canagarajah, S. (2009). The plurilingual tradition and the English language in South Asia. AILA Review, 22(1), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1075/aila.22.02can

Candelier, M., & Castelotti, V. (2013). Didactique(s) du (des) plurilinguisme(s). In J. Simonin & S. Wharton (Eds.), Sociolinguistique du contact : Dictionnaire des termes et concepts (pp. 179–221). ENS Éditions. https://doi.org/10.4000/books.enseditions.12366

Castellotti, V. & Moore, D. (2011). Répertoires plurilingues et pluriculturels. Leur valorisation pour une meilleure intégration scolaire. Babylonia, N1, 29–33.

Cavanagh, M., Cammarata, L., & Blain, S. (2016). Enseigner en milieu francophone minoritaire canadien: synthèse des connaissances sur les défis et leurs implications pour la formation des enseignants. Canadian Journal of Education, 39(4), 1–32. https://journals.sfu.ca/cje/index.php/cje-rce/article/view/2268

Coste D., Moore D., & Zarate, G. (2009). Compétence plurilingue et pluriculturelle. Vers un Cadre Européen Commun de référence pour l’enseignement et l’apprentissage des langues vivantes: études préparatoires. Council of Europe Language Policy Division. https://rm.coe.int/168069d29c

Council of Europe (2001). Cadre européen commun de référence pour les langues : apprendre, enseigner, évaluer. https://rm.coe.int/16802fc3a8

Cummins, J. (1979). Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual children. Review of Educational Research, 49(2), 222–251. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543049002222

Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Multilingual Matters. European Centre for Modern Languages (2020). A framework of reference for pluralistic approaches to languages and cultures. https://carap.ecml.at/Accueil/tabid/3577/language/en-GB/Default.aspx

Fleuret, C. (2020). Apprenants, langues et contextes: quelles configurations pour l’apprentissage du français de scolarisation en contexte minoritaire? In J. Thibeault, & C. Fleuret (Eds.), Didactique du français en contextes minoritaires: entre normes scolaires et plurilinguismes. Presses de l’Université d’Ottawa.

Fleuret, C. & Auger, N. (2019). Translanguaging, recours aux langues et aux cultures de la classe autour de la littérature de jeunesse pour des publics allophones d’Ottawa (Canada) et de Montpellier (France): opportunités et défis pour la classe. Cahiers de l’ILOB, 10, 107–136. https://doi.org/10.18192/olbiwp.v10i0.3789

Fleuret, C., Bangou, F. & Fournier, C. (2018). Le point sur les services d’appui en français pour les nouveaux arrivants dans les écoles francophones de l’Ontario: entre politiques, réalités et défis. In C. IsaBelle (Ed.). Système scolaire franco-ontarien: D’hier à aujourd’hui: pour le plein potentiel des élèves (pp. 285–319). Presses de l’Université du Québec.

Fleuret, C., Bangou, F., & Ibrahim, A. (2013). Langues et enjeux interculturels : une exploration au cœur d’un programme d’appui à l’apprentissage du français de scolarisation pour les nouveaux arrivants. Canadian Journal of Education, 36(4), 280–299. https://journals.sfu.ca/cje/index.php/cje-rce/article/view/1558

Fleuret, C., & Thibeault, J. (2016). Interactions verbales d’élèves allophones en retard scolaire lors de résolutions collaboratives de problèmes orthographiques. Recherches en didactique des langues et des cultures. Les cahiers de l’Acedle, 13(2), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.4000/rdlc.881

Gélinas Proulx, A., IsaBelle, C., & Meunier, H. (2014). Compétence des nouvelles directions d’école de langue française au Canada pour la gestion inclusive de la diversité ethnoculturelle, linguistique et religieuse. Alterstice, 4(1), 73–88. https://www.journal.psy.ulaval.ca/ojs/index.php/ARIRI/article/view/G%E9linas_Alterstice4%281%29

Gérin-Lajoie, D. (2020). Les politiques scolaires et l’inclusion des élèves issus de l’immigration dans les écoles de langue française en Ontario. Éducation et francophonie, 48(1), 164–183. https://doi.org/10.7202/1070105ar

Gérin-Lajoie, D., & Jacquet, M. (2008). Regards croisés sur l’inclusion des minorités en contexte scolaire francophone minoritaire au Canada. Éducation et francophonie, 36(1), 25–43. https://doi.org/10.7202/018088ar

Kamano, L. (2014). Intégration des élèves nouveaux arrivants dans les écoles francophones du sud-est du Nouveau-Brunswick. Université de Moncton, Centre de recherche et de développement en éducation. https://www.umoncton.ca/crde/files/crde/wf/recension_projet_dsf-s_19dec2014.pdf

Lawrence-Lightfoot, S., & Hoffmann Davis, J. (1997). The art and science of portraiture. Jossey-Bass Inc.

Lörincz, I. & de Pietro, J. F. (2011). Valoriser toutes les langues à l’école… par des approches plurielles : le projet CARAP. Babylonia, N1, 49–56.

Marshall, S., & Moore, D. (2018). Plurilingualism amid the panoply of lingualisms: Addressing critiques and misconceptions in education. International Journal of Multilingualism, 15(1), 19–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2016.1253699

McGhie, D., Irvine. A., Loreman, T., Cizman, J.L., & Lupart, J. (2013). Teacher perspectives on inclusive education in rural Alberta, Canada. Canadian Journal of Education, 36(1), 195–239. https://journals.sfu.ca/cje/index.php/cje-rce/article/view/1155

Ministry of Education of Ontario (2004). Politique d’aménagement linguistique de l’Ontario pour l’éducation en langue française. http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/fre/document/policy/linguistique/linguistique.pdf

Ministry of Education of Ontario (2009a). Policy statement and guidelines on the admission, welcoming, and support of students in French-Language schools in Ontario. http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/en/document/policy/Admissions.pdf

Ministry of Education of Ontario (2009b). Stratégie ontarienne d’équité et d’éducation inclusive : comment tirer parti de la diversité. http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/fre/policyfunding/equity.pdf

Ministry of Education of Ontario. (2010). Programme d’appui aux nouveaux arrivants. Le curriculum de l’Ontario de la 1re à la 8e année. http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/fre/curriculum/elementary/appui18curr.pdf.

OECD (2019). Canada. Education at a Glance 2019: OECD Indicators. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/88badc23-en

Paré, M., & Bélanger, N. (2014). La recherche de l’inclusion scolaire à travers les recours offerts aux familles: perspective comparative canadienne dans un contexte francophone minoritaire. Canadian Journal of Law & Society/La Revue Canadienne Droit et Société, 29(3), 327–344. https://doi.org/10.1017/cls.2014.2

Piccardo, E. (2013). Plurilingualism and curriculum design: Towards a synergic vision. TESOL Quarterly, 47(3), 600–614. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.110

Schmidt, S., & Venet, M. (2012). Principals facing inclusive schooling or integration. Canadian Journal of Education, 35(1), 217–38. https://journals.sfu.ca/cje/index.php/cje-rce/article/view/346

Statistics Canada. (2017). Ontario [Province] et Canada [Pays] (table). Profil du recensement, Recensement de 2016, product nº 98-316-X2016001. Statistique Canada. https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/as-sa/98-200-x/2016010/98-200-x2016010-eng.cfm

Sylvestre, J. F., & Lévesque, S. (2018). Historique des écoles de langue française de l’Ontario . In C. IsaBelle (Ed.)., Système scolaire franco-ontarien: D’hier à aujourd’hui : pour le plein potentiel des élèves (pp.49–83). Presses de l’Université du Québec.

Welch, D. (1995). Les Franco-Ontariens : la résistance comme mode de vie. Des pratiques à notre image : défis et ressources, 1(1), 20–42. https://doi.org/10.7202/026053ar

---

Appendix

Entrevues pour les directions

1. Depuis combien de temps l’ALF est-il implanté dans votre école ?

2. Depuis la mise en place de l’ALF, que diriez-vous des élèves qui y sont inscrits ?

3. Comment le conseil scolaire se mobilise-t-il pour soutenir votre école sur le plan des ressources financières et humaines pour l’ALF ?

4. Selon vous, comment votre conseil scolaire pourrait vous aider davantage dans la gestion de l’ALF?

5. Recevez-vous des formations pour mieux saisir les enjeux relatifs à l’ALF?

a. Si oui, de quel type et par qui ?
b. Sinon, lesquelles souhaiteriez-vous ?

6. Comment vous assurez-vous de l’efficacité de l’ALF en tant que direction?

7. Que diriez-vous des modalités d’évaluation :

a. des élèves inscrits à ALF ?
b. du programme en tant que tel ?
c. des personnes impliquées auprès des élèves inscrits à l’ALF ?

8. Quelles sont les pratiques pédagogiques que vous préconisez auprès de ces élèves ?

9. Comment envisagez-vous votre rôle par rapport à l’ALF?

a. auprès de la personne-ressource ?
b. auprès des enseignants ?
c. auprès des parents ?

10.Quels sont vos plus grands défis en tant que directeur par rapport à l’ALF?

a. Comment les contournez-vous ?
b. Que suggéreriez-vous comme améliorations ?

11.Comment les parents se mobilisent-ils pour vous soutenir dans votre mission ?

12. Comment prenez-vous en compte la diversité culturelle au sein de votre établissement?

13. Quelles sont les politiques si un élève parle une autre langue que le français dans l’école?

14. De quelle conception générale d’apprentissage des langues vous sentez-vous le plus proche :

a. «On apprend la langue en connaissant d’abord le code (les règles de grammaire, d’orthographe…) »
b. «On apprend le code en connaissant d’abord la langue (parler, échanger, reformuler, lire…). »

15. Sur une échelle de 1 à 5, dites-nous si vous vous sentez « éloigné » (1) ou « proche » de ces langues ?

• anglais
• arabe
• espagnol
• lingala
• wolof
• portugais
• roumain
• chinois
• créole
• ukrainien
• farsi
• autres (lesquelles ?)

16. Comment décidez-vous qu’un élève devrait faire partie du programme ALF?

Entrevues pour le personnel enseignant

1. Depuis combien de temps enseignez-vous?

2. Depuis combien de temps enseignez-vous aux élèves en ALF?

3. Qu’est-ce qui vous a conduit à travailler avec ces élèves? Pourquoi ?

4. Comment envisagez-vous votre rôle auprès des élèves ALF?

5. Quelle(s) langue(s) parlez-vous au quotidien?

6. Comment les connaissez-vous?

Exemples:

• par ma famille
• par mon environnement
• par mes études
• par mes voyages
• autres langues que vous connaissez, mais que vous n’utilisez pas en ce moment?

7. Comment décidez-vous qu’un élève devrait faire partie du programme ALF

8. Comment décidez-vous qu’un élève devrait être retiré du programme ALF?

9. Comment vous assurez-vous du progrès de l’élève inscrit au programme ALF?

10. Que diriez-vous des élèves inscrits au programme ALF?

11. De quelle pratique vous sentez-vous le plus proche et expliquez votre choix?

a. « Je préfère ne pas trop faire référence aux expériences vécues en dehors de l’école. »
b. « Je suis à l’aise pour inciter l’élève à s’appuyer sur les expériences vécues à la maison. »

12. Faites-vous en classe des liens entre le français (forme d’un mot, sens d’un mot…) et d’autres langues?

13. Comment prenez-vous en compte la diversité culturelle dans vos pratiques pédagogiques?

14. Que faites-vous si un élève parle une autre langue que le français dans la salle de classe?

15. Pensez-vous que ce sera plus simple de développer des compétences en français pour un élève arrivant de Roumanie ou pour un élève arrivant de Régina, en sachant qu’aucun d’eux ne parle le français?

16. Sur une échelle de 1 à 5, dites-nous si vous vous sentez « éloigné » (1) ou « proche » de ces langues ?

• anglais
• arabe
• espagnol
• lingala
• wolof
• portugais
• roumain
• chinois
• créole
• ukrainien
• farsi
• autres (lesquelles ?)