Language Awareness Vol. 19, No.

3, August 2010, 187203

Facing bilingual education: kindergarten teachers attitudes, strategies and challenges

Mila Schwartza,b , Aura Mor-Sommerfeldc,d and Mark Leikinb
a

Oranim Academic College of Education, Tivon, Israel; b Edmond J. Safra Brain Research Center for the Study of Learning Disabilities, Department of Learning Disabilities, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel; c Department of Sociology and Anthropology, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel; d The Centre for Language, Culture and Learning, Goldsmiths University of London, London, UK (Received 21 November 2008; nal version received 13 April 2010) This article examines how majority-language teachers coping with additive education view their roles in a bilingual framework, how they perceive issues of culture and language in young bilingual children, and how they understand the term bilingual education in an L2 non-additive context. The study has been conducted in the context of pre-school bilingual education of second generation Russian-Hebrew speaking immigrants from the former Soviet Union in Israel. Using an ethnographic approach comprising observation, interviews and life histories, a set of behaviours and beliefs has been revealed, enabling us to compare approaches in two bilingual Russian-Hebrew kindergartens. This is discussed at both the micro- (teachers reports) and the macro(Israeli language and educational policies) level. Keywords: bilingual education; immigrant culture; language awareness and strategies; majority-language teachers; minority-language maintenance

Introduction Teachers educational approach of majority languages to minority-language children has aroused increasing interest in recent years, and several studies have been published in this eld (Lee & Oxelson, 2006; Moore, 1999). The question of how majority-language teachers face additive education in non-additive contexts was the focus of a study conducted in Israel in 2008. The context was early bilingual education of second generation Russian-Hebrewspeaking immigrants from the former Soviet Union in Israel. The study described how majority-language teachers view their role in the bilingual framework, how they perceive issues of culture and language in young bilingual children, and how they understand the connotations of bilingual education in an L2 non-additive context. The article consists of three parts, beginning with a review of types of bilingual education and their advantages and effectiveness. It discusses majority-language teachers beliefs about minority childrens ability to learn, and approaches to cultural diversity in educational systems. This is followed by a general background concerning the most recent wave of Russian-Jewish immigration to Israel, addressing Israeli language policies from a historical perspective. The third part presents the study, analyzes the data, and concludes with some recommendations.

Corresponding author. Email: milasch@bgu.ac.il

ISSN 0965-8416 print / ISSN 1747-7565 online C 2010 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/09658416.2010.491919 http://www.informaworld.com

188

M. Schwartz et al.

Bilingual education: forms and effectiveness Baker (2001) distinguishes between weak and strong forms of education for minoritylanguage children. When schools aim solely to transfer minority-language children from their home culture and language to majority culture and language or to educate them only in the minority language, bilingual schooling is weak. In contrast, strong bilingual teaching offers two reciprocally enriching languages and cultures. In this context, it is important to note that it also creates a bilingual environment (Lambert, 1975) supporting the maintenance of the L1 as the children acquire the majority language, i.e. a balanced bilingual development. In contrast, in a subtractive bilingual environment, the majority language (L2) is acquired at the cost of giving up L1, as in weak bilingual schooling. An additive educational context can provide a basis for progress in young bilingual childrens cognitive and linguistic development (Cummins, 2000). Several studies suggest that, at least at an early age, balanced bilinguals appear to be more sensitive to the structure of language than monolingual children (Bialystok, 2001; Mor-Sommerfeld, 2002). Bruck and Genesee (1995) compared young English-French bilinguals and their Englishspeaking monolingual peers longitudinally from kindergarten to rst grade in a variety of phonological tasks. In explicating the early metalinguistic advantage of young bilinguals, the researchers argue that bilingualism seems to provide a type of contrastive linguistic instruction which leads bilingual children to compare and analyze the structural aspects of language in more advanced ways than monolinguals (p. 308). A growing number of psychological and educational studies focus on the issue of bilingual childrens literacy acquisition (Bialystok, 2002). Some of these studies address meta-linguistic skills that are considered to underlie early literacy development such as grammaticality, concept-of-aword and awareness of the sound structure of spoken words (Adams, 1990; Garton & Pratt, 1989). There is increasing evidence of the bilingual advantages of non-verbal problem-solving that depends primarily on selective attention (Bialystok, 2001). Cummins (1978) Linguistic Interdependence Hypothesis claims that Cognitive Academic Language Prociency (CALP) is transferred from one language to another, so that reading instruction in one language leads to better CALP. Other studies (Lauder, 1994; Olmedo, 1992) suggest that teachers of bilingual education may make faulty assumptions about bilingual childrens ability to learn, and consequently expect less of them. Thus, the rich diversity of heritage languages is a powerful linguistic and cultural resource that should be maximized rather than stigmatized as a barrier to academic achievement and social and cultural integration (Brecht & Ingold, 2002). This study examines whether majority-language teachers who have not received bilingual education training are aware of the benets of an early bilingual framework for development of minority-language children.

Teacher training and effective strategies of bilingual education One of the most critical aspects of any programme for education of bilingual children is professional training (Baker, 2001; Lee & Oxelson, 2006; Montague, 1997; Moore, 1999). Interviewing K-12 teachers in Californian public schools, Lee and Oxelson (2006) found that teacher training and personal experiences with languages other than English signicantly affect teachers attitudes toward heritage-language maintenance and bilingualism. Furthermore, teachers without such training believe that for schools, parents,

Language Awareness

189

and communities, English (L2) must be the rst priority. Conversely, trained teachers reported that encouraging literacy in L1 enriches childrens cognitive and linguistic development, and prevents them from full acculturation into the host society. Identifying effective strategies for teaching minority-language students, Baker (1996) points out the signicance of using students native language for instruction; alternating between languages to ensure clarity and understanding but without translating (p. 187). This approach is based on the possibility of transferring conceptual knowledge from L1 to L2 in accordance with Cummins (1978) Linguistic Interdependence Hypothesis. Montague (1997) stressed the need to apply such teaching techniques in clear association with context, extensive use of paralinguistic cues, and tangibility. However, Montague based that argument on data collected in countries in which both weak and strong forms of education for minority-language children are available, and which have a long tradition of teacher training for bilingual education (e.g. USA, Canada). In the case of Israel, although it is a country of immigrants and also has two populations (a minority of Arabic L1 speakers, and Hebrew speakers), children can only receive education in bilingual frameworks (e.g. Arabic-Hebrew;1 Russian-Hebrew) by private initiatives (usually recognized by the Ministry of Education, but not part of mainstream education). Accordingly, there is a crucial lack of bilingual teacher-training programmes. Thus, a major issue needs to be addressed: how do majority-language teachers face the challenge of the bilingual educational framework without appropriate professional training in the target domain? This work explores some patterns of coping with increasing cultural, linguistic and instructional concerns by conducting in-depth interviews with two majority-language teachers in such frameworks. Coping with culturally diverse minority-language children Lewis (1987) and Moore (1999) suggest that teachers should make themselves aware of childrens cultural diversity, and learn how to perceive patterns of culture with which they are not familiar. Lewis (1987) insists that childrens cultural reality varies from culture to culture and includes not only L1 words, but also visual representations, gestures, movements, notions of social etiquette, values and so on. Moore (1999) adds that it is necessary to acknowledge cultural differences through a variety of activities, and to select multicultural teaching material. Gonzalez (1993) suggests that bilingual students construct two representational systems: one that is universal, and another of conceptual categories that are unique to a particular language and culture. Consequently, teachers need to extend their students affective-linguistic and cultural repertoires rather than treating their alternative cultural products as incorrect. Lucas, Henze, and Donato (1990) stress the importance of the value and status of minority languages and cultures in any curriculum. Teachers who integrate aspects of students home culture and values into classroom activities succeed in building trust and self-esteem as well as in promoting cultural diversity and pluralism. Ball and Lardner (1997) observed that lack of respect for the home language of students led to negative attitudes towards the children who spoke it; that in effect these attitudes constituted a language barrier impeding the students educational progress (p. 472). Analyzing links between childrens cultural diversity and teachers awareness of this, Hidalgo (1993) describes three levels of cultural perception concrete, behavioral, and symbolic. The concrete level refers to the most visible and tangible characteristics, which . . . is most often interpreted as the culture of ethnic groups (p. 101). The behavioral level refers to how we dene our social roles, the language(s) we speak, the rituals we practice, and the forms of our non-verbal communication (p. 100). Our behavior, Hidalgo claims,

190

M. Schwartz et al.

reects our values. The symbolic, probably the most abstract level, contains elements of values and beliefs and is, in some way, reected in the behavioral level. Concerning the real place of pluri-culturalism in the classroom, Hidalgo (1993) states that teachers frequently interpret attributes of the concrete level as the culture of ethnic groups. But foods, clothes, holidays and artifacts actually reveal very little about how ethnic groups experience and make meaning of world. According to Epstein (1999), it seems to be almost impossible to create an atmosphere of cooperation in a classroom without attempting to understand the behavioral and symbolic levels of other cultural backgrounds. However, sometimes different elements do overlap. Holy days, which address rituals, narratives and historical background as well as concepts and values, are examples of this. Hidalgos perspective and distinction serve as the theoretical framework of this study. It is widely agreed that teachers can play an inuential role in shaping students attitudes towards the maintaining of their heritage language and culture (Lee & Oxelson, 2006; Moore, 1999; Nieto, 2002). However, there has been little, if any, research into majoritylanguage teachers attitudes toward childrens minority- language development and cultural diversity in countries with ofcial non-additive educational and language policies. The present study addresses issues of language policy in Israel within the context of bilingual Russian-Hebrew pre-school education. Language policy in Israel The linguistic situation in Israel is more complicated than in other countries founded and built largely upon immigration, such as the USA and Canada. In Israel, language is a loaded concept, closely linked to historical, ideological, political, and social issues (Shohamy, 1994; Spolsky & Shohamy, 1999). Hebrew as a spoken language was revived more than a century ago, and is central to Israeli society. Until recently, a deliberate lack of interest was displayed for other languages spoken by Jewish immigrants arriving in Israel. Accordingly, Hebrew is the ofcial language of pre-school and school education among the Jewish population, and is learnt as a second language in Arab schools (the educational system in Israel separates Arabic citizens of Israel and Hebrew speakers into two different educational systems. Jewish newcomers to Israel join the Hebrew system (see Mor-Sommerfeld, Azaiza, & Hertz-Lazarowitz, 2007). In recent years, there has been a more liberal policy towards maintaining immigrants languages (Ministry of Education, 2008). According to Spolsky and Shohamy (1999), this is clearly attributable to the new immigrants refusal to renounce their L1. Note, however, that even though the Ministry of Education encourages new immigrants to maintain their mother tongue parallel to the acquisition of Hebrew in the elementary schools, heritage languages are not a part of school curricula (Ministry of Education, 2008). The actual possibility of doing so exists only in unofcial extra-curricular frameworks. Russian immigrants in Israel and community language policy Between 1989 and 2008, 992,236 immigrants arrived in Israel from the former Soviet Union (FSU) approximately one-sixth of the total Israeli population (Ministry of Immigration, 2008). This huge inux of newcomers has joined a multi-layered multilingual society, resulting in a fairly consolidated community structure at both the formal (e.g. political) and informal levels (Leshem & Lissak, 1999). This is evident in the role and status of the Russian language in several aspects of Israeli life. Russian has informally attained the de facto status of Israels third language (Ben-Rafael et al., 2006; Olstein, 1995), after

Language Awareness

191

Hebrew and Arabic,2 the two ofcial languages (English has a special status because of its role as an international language, see Spolsky & Shohamy, 1999). There is a statesponsored Russian-language radio network and TV channel, and there are several local Russian newspapers as well as some national ones. The Russian-speaking sociolinguistic milieu also includes educational and cultural institutions (professional courses, clubs, and theatres), political organizations, and local party branches (Ben-Rafael et al., 2006). The massive wave of immigrants has also impacted the language policy of the Ministry of Education. For example, in 1990 the Ministry of Education permitted a program in Russian as a mother tongue for new immigrant students who had studied in Russian up to Grade 9 and as a result to take a State examination in L1 (Bagrut) (Spolsky & Shohamy, 1999). Some studies (Ben-Rafael et al., 2006; Donitsa-Schmidt, 1999; Leshem & Lissak, 1999) have argued that Russian-speaking immigrants strongly appreciate their original culture, which apparently encourages them to maintain their mother tongue and promote its acquisition by their children, including those who were born in Israel. The assertion of Russian-speaking immigrants original cultural identity underlies one of the stated aims of language policy at the community level: the preservation of a cultural heritage and its language among the second generation (see Epstein & Kheimetz, 2000). To realize this, parents and teachers established networks of pre-school Russian-Hebrew education in the early 1990s. This study focuses on majority-language teaching in those networks. Immigrant parents commitment to their heritage language and to establishing extensive community networks does not in itself guarantee language acquisition among secondgeneration children (Kaufman, 2000; Saville-Troike, 2000). The picture would not be complete without relating to socio-cultural and linguistic aspects that might hamper intergenerational transmission of Russian as a minority language.

Pre-school networks for heritage language (Russian) maintenance Two networks of pre-school Russian-Hebrew education operate more than 20 bilingual pre-school settings throughout Israel. Although these are private institutions, they function under the supervision of the Ministry of Education (there are several educational streams in Israel, most of them supervised by the Ministry of Education). Teachers in the RussianHebrew pre-schools use the same curriculum as in the Hebrew monolingual kindergarten, adapted to their needs. As in mainstream kindergartens, the everyday curriculum typically includes: topic discussions (e.g. religious festivals, seasons and weather, family), readaloud sessions (questions about a story, predictions, discussions, vocabulary enrichment and retelling), and music, rhythm and art sessions. At age ve, the children move on to compulsory municipal kindergartens. This study was conducted in two such bilingual kindergartens, Radost (Happiness) and Skazka (Fairy tale), in northern Israel3 . Both kindergartens aim to promote L1 (Russian) maintenance and L2 (Hebrew) acquisition. During each period of instruction, only one language is used, by a native speaker. It should also be emphasized that, in these frameworks, only second-generation children (aged one to ve years) who, in most cases, are from homes in which both parents immigrated from FSU, are enrolled. This educational setting is not a two-way system (Baker, 2001). Regarding the structure of the curricula, however, there is a noticeable difference between targets. In Radost, the curriculum is constructed to ensure that both Russian and Hebrew are used daily in all courses, and that both languages are media of instruction about 50% each. In Skazka, the matching between content in Hebrew and in Russian is

192

M. Schwartz et al.

inconsistent and unplanned, and Hebrew is used for most of the classroom time (6070%) as of age three. The teachers Gila and Aviva3 are teachers in two Russian-Hebrew kindergartens in Israel. Most of the teachers who work in the bilingual Russian-Hebrew nursery schools are Russian L1 speakers. Gila and Aviva, both Hebrew L1 speakers, are exceptions, and therefore were chosen as our objects of research. They are about the same age, born in Israel in the late 1950s; both of them have three children, live in the city, and had their academic training at about the same time in similar teacher-training colleges. Both Gila and Aviva have had about the same amount of practical experience in these frameworks. Afliation and team-work Gila works in Skazka. She has more than 25 years professional experience as a pre-school teacher (including work in her own private monolingual nursery). Aviva works in Radost. She had no professional experience prior to working in the bilingual kindergarten, about four years ago. Thus, although she obtained her teachertraining certicate 17 years earlier, she decided to stay at home and dedicate herself to care-giving and child rearing. Aviva and Gila belong to two different teams, of about ve teachers in each kindergarten, most Russian L1 speakers. The different frameworks dictate the teachers pattern of collaboration: Gila works by herself, and puts less emphasis on cooperation with her colleagues. Aviva works in collaboration with her team, especially with her colleague who teaches in Russian, with whom she also develops the curricula in Russian (L1) and in Hebrew (L2). All of this means that one receives clear and direct guidance while the other lacks clear direction concerning language policy in the kindergarten. Our main interest in these two cases was to discover: (1) what attitudes they bring to the encounter with the bilingual groups; (2) the inuence (if there is any) of the bilingual framework on the teachers approach and behaviour; (3) how they cope linguistically when instructing bilingual children; and (4) how their experience can be applied to other contexts. Methodology We used an ethnographic approach that includes observation, semi-structured interviews, and life histories in this study. During the 20072008 school years, we observed the two teachers at work, talked with them, and interviewed them afterwards. Three bi-monthly observation sessions were conducted in each kindergarten, each time for three hours, i.e. during teacherchildren circle meetings, outdoor activities, and communication. All observations were conducted before conducting the interviews. The observations were directed at obtaining detailed descriptions of the teachers instruction sessions and informal linguistic and social interaction with children. The observation sheets had the following headings: time, place, setting (e.g. circle meeting), activity, instructional and training strategy, sources/tools (e.g. music book, hand puppet). Detailed remarks about the teachers behavior were made immediately after the observations.

Language Awareness

193

The data collected during the observations helped us to formulate our ideas before we began interviewing the teachers formally. Conducted by the authors, the interviews took place in the teachers homes at a time convenient for them. Each interview lasted about two hours and was tape-recorded with the interviewees consent, in some cases allowing the interview to develop into a conversation. Discourse analysis and critical discourse analysis were used to analyze the data. Generally speaking, discourse analysis (DA) describes a heterogeneous range of social sciences based on analysis of recorded talk (Silverman, 1993, p. 120). We found that, within the framework of Hidalgos three levels as proposed earlier, DA enabled us to consider a broader range of attitudes and activities related to language and culture. On a smaller scale we also employed critical discourse analysis (CDA) which primarily examines social power relationships - how issues such as abuse, dominance and inequality are enacted and reproduced by text and talk (van Dijk, 2002). It helped us to better understand the majority-language teachers attitudes towards immigrant families of other cultures and languages. Thus, CDA provided us with a critical tool to analyze the words, structure and content of the text, and helped us explore both the revealed and the concealed information (Wodak, 1989). Discussion Facing bilingual education: culture and language The following sections discuss culture and language, teachers perceptions and goals in educating bilingual children, and methods of majority-language instruction. They also discuss concepts, beliefs and attitudes towards immigrant childrens education. Culture Hidalgo (1993) suggested considering culture at three levels: concrete, behavioral and symbolic, but these levels cannot only be viewed discretely. The concrete level reects behavioral patterns, and the behavioral patterns reect values (symbolic level), but these elements are interconnected and sometimes explain and interpret each other. Interpretation seems, as a rule, to be at the symbolic level. Based on this premise, we analyzed the teachers approach to minority-language children, at the concrete and behavioral level, and the behavioural and symbolic level. The behavioural level appears in both sections as a link between visible elements (concrete) and values (symbolic level). Concrete and behavioral levels According to Hidalgo (1993), the concrete level comprises the visible and tangible elements of ethnic culture, which may reveal certain behavioral patterns. In what follows, Gila talks about how she views Russian-speaking immigrants life-style focusing on visible elements (e.g. clothing) and how she perceives and copes with it (underlined or italic phrases are discussed in detail later):
Gila: Its . . . a different lifestyle . . . nothing will help. Today there were two drops of rain and theyre already wearing fteen layers . . . Im still in short sleeves. Nothing will help. Today they [the children] are already wearing boots, and umbrellas, and woolly hats . . . At rst it was very difcult for me to accept this. You understand, its all these things connected to each other its hard to accept them . . . When I saw all those layers . . . When I saw that whole style, it wasnt clear to me, it didnt make sense to me . . .

194

M. Schwartz et al.

Q: Apart from the layers, what else? Gila: Its everything, everything. Its the kind of food, the kind of things . . . I dont know if its just the culture . . . I see it as a bit exaggerated.

In the above extract, Gila expresses both her difculties and her helplessness. She links the concrete attributes of wearing fteen layers or all those layers to the behavioral pattern of overprotection (a bit exaggerated) of the immigrant parents, as opposed to her own (Im still in short sleeves). The way she repeats, nothing will help or its everything perhaps indicates her problem, not just with basic visual elements, but with the Russian-speaking immigrant community as a whole. On the other hand, her remark it wasnt clear to me opens a window for her to examine her reactions and clarify them. Hidalgo (1993) insists that concrete elements such as food or music are acknowledged and adopted within the educational system. This level can be problematic because, apparently, its elements are quite basic. On one hand, they are easily noted, and might be a shortcut to relating to target behavior; on the other, these concrete elements can also be the hardest to accept.

Behavioral and symbolic levels There is a deep connection between behavioral and symbolic levels. Our behavior reects our values; language reects our beliefs and values (i.e. the symbolic level). The way we ascribe meaning to our experiences depends on these values and beliefs. In terms of behaviour, Aviva tends to generalize:
. . . I really like the quiet Russian behaviour, the peacefulness, which is so different from Israeli behaviour. Israelis shout . . . The Russians dont . . . Ive noticed this, and not just in my kindergarten . . .

Aviva perceives and appreciates the politeness and restraint of the Russian-speaking immigrants. She appreciates this social behaviour, especially as compared to that of the Israelis. She continues:
. . . Its not a culture that imposes itself. That is, if you have a Yolochka [Christmas tree] at home, then you have Yolochka at home. It doesnt bother anybody. If you want to, come, see, celebrate with us . . . They [Russian-speaking immigrants] dont impose themselves . . . Thats something that I really like, this lack of insistence. . . . Its a population with very high levels of intelligence and culture. Their culture is very important to them, and so is their language and they want to preserve it. Thats very nice and very important.

By stressing that the culture and the language are very important to them Aviva acknowledges the strong tendency of the last wave of Russian-speaking immigrants in Israel to assert their original culture. However, she also complains:
. . . They dont accept other cultures . . . If there is a birthday party, they invite only the Russians, not the whole class. I dont accept this. It makes me so angry . . .

Conversely, Gilas approach differs from Avivas when she speaks about elements of culture and language. She refers to family behavior, including her own:
. . . I dont know if its the culture, but I think it is . . . . I see it as a bit exaggerated . . . My children had the best possible after-school activities, in my opinion, but I didnt drive them

Language Awareness

195

crazy . . . with physics, chemistry, English . . . no, no, theyll learn all that in time. To me it seems a bit over the top . . . Q.: Why do you think the Russian parents send their children to study physics? Gila: I think its a matter of . . . why were all these schools [community-based after-school settings] started? . . . After all, before the immigration [from the FSU] these schools didnt exist . . . There were after-school groups here and there, but not like this . . . You didnt take three-year olds to study geometry and logic and shmogic, you didnt.

The above reveals Gilas difculties in accepting elements of the traditional RussianJewish approach to early child-rearing (Epstein & Kheimets, 2000). As in the case of clothing, Gila sees the insistence on after-school education as more than a little exaggerated. She states her own views (those generally accepted in Israel) about child development, relying on her experience with her own children: I didnt drive them mad with physics, chemistry, English . . . no, no, theyll learn all that in time, and her mocking you didnt take three-year olds to study geometry and logic and shmogic. Is it possible that Gilas fear of the Russian community in Israel inuences her attitude towards it? Describing her relationship with the Russian-speaking immigrants, she says:
. . . Its a group that has doubled the population of this country. Theyve got almost more power than our own here. I dont mean that they are threatening, but on a small scale, like for example in a kindergarten, it does become threatening.

This rather strong outburst expresses an almost existential fear (threatening), not just for herself but for Israeli society as a whole (see also Ben-Rafael et al., 2006). It is evident, then, that Aviva and Gila have dissimilar perceptions of the cultural baggage brought by the last wave of Russian immigration. Gila expresses fear (Theyve got almost more power than our own in this country). Aviva appreciates the new immigrants and shows a great deal of acceptance (Thats something I really like). However, both of them tend to generalize. Their approach to the Russian culture may be reected in how they relate to the bilingual kindergarten.

Language We examined how the teachers approach to Russian-speaking immigrants and their cultural values links up with their attitudes toward bilingual education and Russian-Hebrew relationships.

Teachers perceptions and goals As described, both teachers were born in Israel, and are native Hebrew speakers, but their attitudes to Russian, to bilingual education as a whole, and to the relationship between the two languages differ:
Aviva: The two languages are very important. Very. Because Russian is important to the Russians living here, and so that they can maintain contact with whoever remained in Russia . . . Also, grandparents and elderly relatives who live in Israel cant communicate in Hebrew. Q: I noticed, at that birthday party, that you said the birthday wishes to the little girl in Hebrew, and then you asked your assistant [Russian L1 speaker] to repeat them in Russian. Why? Aviva: I always want the greetings to be in Russian too, because its a multi-lingual kindergarten. Its nice for the parents to hear them in Russian.

196

M. Schwartz et al.

Avivas belief in the equal value and status of both languages is quite obvious, and she does not rely only on instrumental motives (grandparents and elderly relatives who live in Israel cant communicate in Hebrew). This is in line with Lucass et al. (1990) statement that the value of a minority-childrens language in a bilingual framework is crucial to the childrens development and empowerment. Avivas attitude to Russian is consonant with her attitude towards Russian culture and with the way she views the Russian immigrant community in Israel as a whole. Gila has a different attitude. She acknowledges her role in the bilingual kindergarten as monolingual teacher, seeing herself as representing the dominant majority in terms of language, culture, ethnicity and education. However, ambiguity and signs of insecurity in her role within the bilingual kindergarten are reected in the way she talks:
Gila: I think that all languages are valuable and, if used in the right way, there is only gain. Theres no loss at all if its taken in the right way,.. not as if its a threat. If its done happily, and you really want to be in this, and to take part in it, then thats great. I think that its very important. I think that any language is an asset, a great asset . . . I think that now if they had a little bit more Hebrew that could only help them. It cant harm them . . . For example, if today we have all kinds of extra activities in the kindergarten, lets say Russian . . .

When asked whether she viewed Russian lessons as an extra activity at the kindergarten, she explained that Russian-language activities are useful and culturally enriching, but not a target. Evidently, Gila perceives the exposure to Russian as secondary to Hebrew. According to Bakers (2001) distinction between weak and strong concepts in bilingual frameworks, Gilas approach seems to be the weak one:
Q: For whom, do you think, is this idea of bilingual kindergartens important? Gila: For whom its important? I dont know. I cant tell you that. I think its very important. First, they must learn the language spoken in this country and be exposed to it as early as possible. On the other hand, they should preserve their own language . . . My intention . . . is that they go away prepared, from the point of view of their [Jewish-Israeli] heritage. They should know about the festivals, what we do at each festival, how we behave, what we eat. Thats very important to me . . . The aim is that they should make progress . . . so that in the municipal kindergartens they wont fail . . . that they should be ready . . .

It seems that Gila acknowledges the importance of bilingual education. On the other hand, she maintains that Hebrew and the Jewish tradition should be the main targets. Her confusion about the role of the language (for whom its important I dont know vs. its very important), and her role as a Hebrew teacher (that they should be ready) suggests that she is not concerned with bilingualism and bilingual education. Language awareness, language strategies, and empowerment of the bilingual child The issue of language strategies is central to language instruction and development (Baker, 2001; Montague, 1997). How and why teachers select or prefer certain strategies to others, their awareness of L2 instruction for youngsters, all this compounds the complexity of teaching in bilingual frameworks. Gila relies on her experience in monolingual kindergartens, focusing on it in order to reect and explain her insights:
. . . The work plan is the same; the subjects are the same. It just gets longer and longer . . . Its not like working in an ordinary kindergarten. Everything has to be done to emphasize it much more, much more. And you need a lot of memorizing, repetition . . . There are lots of things . . . that I certainly do from intuition, a gut feeling . . . from my experience. I have thirty years experience and thats not insignicant.

Language Awareness
Q: So its both intuition and experience?

197

Gila: Yes, OK, its not insignicant. Thirty years Ive been working in this eld and with these ages . . . so I know the job very well. Now I need to brush up on something I didnt use before, and thats the bilingual issue. Clarifying things. Because here I need to actually teach the language . . . to give the children a basis so that they will know how to speak, when and how to use certain concepts.

Indeed, in regard to her experience, Gila feels quite comfortable (I know the job very well indeed). Nevertheless, although she acknowledges the differences between monolingual and bilingual settings (it gets longer and longer, a lot of memorizing, a lot of repetition), her lack of theoretical knowledge about language instruction is reected in her professional confusion, expressed in the way she bases her work on intuition and experience rather than on professional knowledge. She continues:
. . . In a monolingual [kindergarten] they learn a language, either Hebrew or Russian . . . Today I have to explain them when to use a particular word so that theyll know . . . In a monolingual [kindergarten] there are concepts that they use every day. Even though they are small, its their language . . . These children may know these concepts in Russian, but they dont know how to say them in Hebrew, and they dont always know how to use them . . . Its not a usual kindergarten. Its not a kindergarten where what you do is the same as all the other ones . . .

Gila is aware of the uniqueness of her kindergarten (its not a usual kindergarten), and that it needs specic strategies for bilingual development. The following example also reveals some lack of professional knowledge:
Gila: . . . Now for example theyve begun to bring slippers, changing shoes to wear slippers. Thats a new concept, slippers . . . They have to know how we say it in Hebrew, so we have both the concept of slippers and the concept of colours. For example, if I say All the children wearing brown slippers, please stand up, and if only those with brown slippers stand up, that means that [they have] understood . . . Yesterday, I taught them between, . . . the concept of a preposition, I dont know what to call them. . . . I took a big chair and told them that I was getting under the chair; or walking around a hoop . . .

Some of the most important aspects of any bilingual programme are teacher training and prociency (Baker, 2001; Lucas et al., 1990; Montague, 1997). The above indicates that Gila lacks both. Although she is aware that the children may have grasped these concepts in Russian, her confusion about concept and word, (using the term concept for both slippers and colours) is an example of lack of basic terminology, which is essential for both L1 and L2 development. Research has shown that young bilinguals can transfer conceptual knowledge from L1 to L2 and vice versa. This accords with accepted theories of language development such as the Interdependent Hypothesis (Cummins, 2000) and the cognitive theory of learning (OMalley & Chamot, 1990). However, in our case, the teacher is not aware of bilingual childrens abilities and advantages: . . . these children, maybe they know these concepts in Russian, but they dont know how to say them in Hebrew, and they dont always know how to use them . . . Aviva also discusses her strategies:
. . . I taught them something on Sunday, but [the children] didnt understand anything. On Monday [the other teacher] explained it again, but in Russian, with the same pictures and the same recording/video, and the same dance. On Tuesday, they already understood me . . . and made progress with it . . . and I continued in Hebrew.

198

M. Schwartz et al. She continues:

. . . First of all, I have to make everything actual . . . or at least bring a picture, I cant bring a tree into the kindergarten, but at least a picture of a tree . . . ., I had to repeat grapefruit for them, show them a grapefruit, cut it, let them smell, let them taste. They dont understand bitter or sour. They dont understand sweet. You have to teach these things . . . That is, they do know them in Russian. I want them to know in Hebrew, and to recognize them in the context of fruit. Now, for everything I immediately show an example. I took a grapefruit and a lemon. Both are yellow so we learned the colour yellow. And then we worked on big and small. When I saw that the child understood me I stayed with big and small; when he didnt understand I switched to bolshoy [big] and malenkiy [small] . . . I also show it to them tangibly . . . tangible. Everything is tangible. I look for dolls, animals, gloves, pictures. A picture is also good, dramatization.

Avivas description reects the language policy of the Radost kindergarten as regards rst instructing concepts in L1. It seems that it also reects her insights into bilingual childrens ability to transfer conceptual knowledge (Cummins, 2000). The authors noticed that Aviva inserted some Russian words during her sessions in the kindergarten. When asked about the reason for this, she replied:
When I rst came to the kindergarten I learned three words: sopli [runny nose], pit [drink] and molodetz [good for you] . . . It was important to say these words to the children, to communicate with them. The rst two words, clearly, are about hygiene and the third is just to give the child a good feeling.

Initially, Aviva uses some Russian words to break the ice, but as time goes on she adopts a full Hebrew-language strategy. This enables her not just to communicate with newcomers but also to empower the children. Hence, using both languages is absolutely legitimate. Thus, while Gila was struggling alone, making efforts, naming things, looking carefully at what other teachers were doing, Aviva actually gave us a detailed list of strategies to use in L2 teaching:

r concept instruction in L1 rst (they know . . . in Russian. I want them to know it in r using L1 (switching to bolshoy [big] and malenkiy [small]); r actualization (make everything tangible, I immediately show an example); r multi-sensual activities (show them a grapefruit . . . cut it, let them smell, let them r r r r
taste); using pictures (I cant bring a tree into the kindergarten); repetition (I had to repeat); relying on context (I want them to recognize it in the context . . . ); and dramatization (I look for dolls, animals, gloves . . . ). Hebrew);

Like Gila, Aviva has had no professional training in bilingual teaching, so that the strategies she employs are most impressive. Her awareness of a possible concept transfer from L1 to L2 derives from her daily experience, encouraging her to continue this very effective practice, and doing so without previous theoretical knowledge. Thus, relying on instinct (gut feeling), and by experience and wondering, Aviva develops her professionalism and practically applies Cummins (1978) theories about cross-linguistic transference. To conclude the data presentation we present a brief outline of the teachers insights into the advantages of early bilingualism. For one teacher, this is essentially about functional goals:

Language Awareness

199

Gila: I think that if they had a little bit more Hebrew that could only help them . . . Im in favour of it, (but) I think that this thing of two languages is excellent because Im in favour of them preserving their language . . . There are still homes with grandparents who dont speak Hebrew and you have to communicate with them, and its very important.

Aviva, on the other hand, says:

Aviva: Its a multi-lingual educational kindergarten. That means that we work . . . in two main languages, Hebrew and Russian. They also get a little English. And we teach about . . . both the Israeli [Jewish] festivals and a little about the Russian festivals . . . A bilingual child is a child with a bigger memory and a stronger brain. The brain is a muscle, and in the end it can develop as much as you want. And I think the fact that these children have two languages only enriches them. It gives them more.

Both teachers express insights into bilingualism: rst language maintenance, intergeneration link, childrens empowerment, and cognitive advantages. Nevertheless, it seems that Gila refers more to instrumental motives for grounding of bilingual education, while Aviva denes the status of her framework as a multi-lingual educational kindergarten and stresses cognitive and linguistic advantages of early bilingual education. This can perhaps be explained by differences in personality and professional beliefs. It could also be explained by different ideological approaches. While in Avivas kindergarten there is a clear ideology of the equal value of both languages, in Gilas kindergarten Hebrew is the main language of instruction and the curriculum is built exclusively on her initiative.

Summary and conclusion This article discusses how teachers of Hebrew L1 as a majority language view and cope with bilingual pedagogy in Russian-Hebrew kindergartens in Israel. It is aimed at understanding their attitudes, analyzing their difculties, and formulating their challenges. The data can be discussed at both the micro- (teachers reports on coping with bilingual education) and the macro- (Israeli language and local educational policies) level. At the micro-level, the teachers attitudes towards the RJ immigrant community are linked with their perception of the role (including their own) of the educational systems and of the status of the two target languages. Focusing on two teachers in two kindergartens, this study shows some similarities and differences related to the individual and the personality as well to the bilingual pedagogy in the two settings. Both teachers address the symbolic, behavioral and concrete levels of Russian-Jewish culture. However, the ability to understand cultural meaning and to accept it, as well as its diversity within Israeli society, is different. As evident from analysis of the data, one teacher is more rigid in her views, while the other is more exible. The personal differences may be one explanation. The language policy in each kindergarten may complete the picture. Although both teachers have evolved a rather generalized image of the RJ immigrant communities, one of them (Aviva) appreciates their distinctive cultural characteristics. She is more open to their culture, not only at the concrete level, but also at the symbolic and behavioral levels. The other teacher (Gila), however, perceives Israeli culture (the majority culture) as the norm against which the symbolic and behavioral levels of this community must be measured (Lewis, 1987; Moore, 1999). She expresses her rejection and underestimates their social etiquette and patterns of child-rearing. It seems that her preference is for the melting pot approach, viewing assimilation as the best way of acculturation and of breaking down ideological barriers. The teachers approaches are reected in how they relate to majority and minority languages in the bilingual kindergarten, and the effects on their understanding of the

200

M. Schwartz et al.

goals of bilingual education. One teacher sees herself purely as a Hebrew teacher; the other acknowledges Russian as an equal language, and bilingualism as a socio-educational approach. With the rst, however, this may be due to the fact that her kindergarten does not yet have a fully dened majority-minority language policy. It is important for teachers in a bilingual kindergarten to realize that bilingual children can be more aware of the arbitrary nature of words than their monolingual peers, due to dual language input and advanced ability to think about and reect upon the nature and functions of language (see also: Ben-Zeev, 1977; Bialystok, 2001; Cummins, 1978; Ianco-Worrall, 1972; Mor-Sommerfeld, 2002). In our case, one teacher perceives Russian lessons as an extra-curricular activity rather than viewing knowledge of two languages as benecial and empowering for childrens cognitive and linguistic development; the other is aware of and argues for the tremendous effect of bilingualism on childrens identity and cognition. In regard to these dissimilar approaches, Gila may be affecting language policies and climate in the kindergarten by transmitting her hierarchical concept of the majority culture and language. Her view of Russian as an extra language, as opposed to the Hebrew imperative, seems to be part of her perception of the relationship between the host country and the immigrant community, and perhaps even her alarm about the threatening power of the latter. However, Gilas uncertainties and hesitations about bilingual education and minority language maintenance cannot be disregarded. They seem to derive from the gradual transfer from the melting-pot ideology to tolerance for cultural and language diversity. This can be the outcome of her encounter with immigration in a new educational setting. Concerning coping with bilingual pedagogy, it seems that both teachers rely on their own experience, searching for effective ways to promote Hebrew as L2. They both understand that they must nd various methodological strategies, as compared to monolingual instruction. Both of them lack professional training, but their levels of professional knowledge and development are markedly different. As noted, so far, Aviva has found her own strategies, but Gila seems determined to stay with Hebrew only. Furthermore, while Aviva stresses the cognitive advantages of early bilingual development, Gila refers only to instrumental needs. To what extent this is true for other such educational-pedagogical contexts remains unclear. The two teachers have similar backgrounds in terms of historical, educational and socio-economic frameworks, as individuals and professionals. Both of them had little experience of bilingual development and education, both generally rely on instinct trial and error and awareness of the difference between monolingual and bilingual education. It is also clear that teaching approaches toward the role of bilingual education in the language socialization of minority children are still developing, and may change over time. At the same time, our data vividly illustrate the salient dissimilarities concerning both key issues of this study, i.e. majority-minority culture, and language interplay in the framework of bilingual pedagogy. In attempting to understand this, we have tapped into the relationship between the Israeli policy of adaptation and assimilation of immigrants into Israeli society, the recent changes in this policy in regard to the latest RJ immigration, the local policies of the target kindergartens, and the teachers cultural and linguistic ideology and practices. The study also underlines the urgent necessity for professional support of majoritylanguage teachers confronting bilingual education, in terms of theoretical background, techniques and approaches, as well as emotional support, with realistic expectations for co-existence and co-development of more than one language. Given the current Israeli language policy, we view the establishment of professional training programs for bilingual education in the teachers training institutions as a long-term objective. The language awareness model (H elot & Young, 2005; Young & H elot, 2003) of majority-language teacher education, which stresses cultural diversity as an empowering learning resource and

Language Awareness

201

fosters tolerance towards ethnic differences, could provide ongoing support for majoritylanguage teachers. We believe that this study might have a central role in improving teacher education in multilingual contexts and this is a current issue of concern for many countries such as in the European Union. Concerning future studies, we hope that this study will act as a starting point for a broader study that might provide new insights on this issue.

Acknowledgements
This paper was supported by the grants awarded to Dr Mila Schwartz by Kreitman Postdoctoral fellowship (Ben-Gurion University, Beer-Sheva, Israel) and by the Edmond J. Safra foundation. The funders had no role in the decision to publish or in the preparation of the manuscript. We are grateful to two anonymous reviewers for their useful comments.

Notes on contributors
Mila Schwartz is a faculty member at the Oranim Academic College of Education, and Edmond J. Safra Brain Research Center for the Study of Learning Disabilities, Department of Learning Disabilities, University of Haifa, Israel. Aura Mor-Sommerfeld is a faculty member in the Department of Sociology and Anthropology at the University of Haifa in Israel, as well as in the Centre for Language Culture and Learning at the Goldsmiths University of London. Mark Leikin is a researcher at the Edmond J. Safra Brain Research Center for the Study of Learning Disabilities, Department of Learning Disabilities, University of Haifa, Israel.

Notes
1. Arabic-Hebrew bilingual kindergartens are different from Russian-Hebrew kindergartens. They are established for socio-political reasons and are settings for children, parents and teachers from both populations. 2. 20% of the population of Israel is Arabic L1 speakers. 3. All names of teachers and kindergartens have been changed.

References
Adams, M.J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Baker, C. (1996). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Ball, A., & Lardner, T. (1997). Dispositions toward language: Teacher constructs of knowledge and the Ann Arbor Black English case. College Composition and Communication, 48(4), 469485. Ben-Rafael, E., Lyubansky, M., Gl ockner, O., Harris, P., Israel, Y., Jasper, W., et al. (2006). Building a Diaspora: Russian Jews in Israel, Germany and the USA. Leiden: Brill. Ben-Zeev, S. (1977). The inuence of bilingualism on cognitive strategy and cognitive development. Child Development, 48, 10091018. Bialystok, E. (2001). Bilingualism in development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bialystok, E. (2002). Acquisition of literacy in bilingual children: A framework for research. Language Learning, 52, 159199. Brecht, R.D., & Ingold, C.W. (2002, May). Tapping a national resource: Heritage language in the United States. Washington, DC: National Foreign Language Center. In http://www.cal. org/ericcLL/digest/0202brecht.html Bruck, M., & Genesee, F. (1995). Phonological awareness in young second language learners. Journal of Child Language, 22, 307324.

202

M. Schwartz et al.

Cummins, J. (1978). Bilingualism and the development of metalinguistic awareness. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 9, 131149. Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power, and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossre. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Donitsa-Schmidt, S. (1999). Language maintenance or shift determinants of language choice among Soviet immigrants in Israel. Unpublished doctoral thesis. Toronto: University of Toronto. Epstein, A. (1999). State-mediated hierarchy of diversities and the freedom of individual selfidentication: Towards a dynamic liberal model of multiculturalism. New Global Development: Journal of International and Comparative Social Welfare, 15, 3651. Epstein, A., & Kheimets, N. (2000). Cultural clash and educational diversity: Immigrant teachers effort to rescue the education of immigrant children in Israel. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 10(2), 191210. Garton, A., & Pratt, C. (1989). Learning to be literate: The development of spoken and written language. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Gonzalez, V. (1993, February). How to differentially diagnose normal second language learning form true handicapping of conditions: A qualitative-developmental approach. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Bilingual Education, Houston. H elot, C., & Young, A. (2005). The notion of diversity in language education: Policy and practice at primary level in France. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 18(3), 242257. Hidalgo, N. (1993). Multicultural teacher introspection. In T. Perry & J. Fraser (eds.), Freedoms plow: Teaching in the multicultural classroom (pp. 99106). New York: Routledge. Ianco-Worrall, A. (1972). Bilingualism and cognitive development. Child Development, 43, 1390 1400. Kaufman, D. (2000). Attrition of Hebrew in the United States: Sociolinguistic perspectives. In E. Olshtain & G. Horenczyk (eds.), Language, identity, and immigration (pp. 173196). Jerusalem: The Magnes press, Hebrew University. Lambert, W.E. (1975). Culture and language as factors in learning and education. In A. Worlfgang (ed.), Education of immigrant students. Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. Lauder, S.I.P. (1994). Factors which may be related to attitudes of teachers towards Mexican American student achievement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Claremont Graduate University. Lee, J.S., & Oxelson, E. (2006). Its not my job: K-12 teacher attitudes toward students heritage language maintenance. Bilingual Research Journal, 30(2), 453477. Leshem, E., & Lissak, M. (1999). Development and consolidation of the Russian community in Israel. In S. Weil (ed.), Roots and routes: Ethnicity and migration in global perspective (pp. 135171). Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, Hebrew University. Lewis, M. (1987). Culture, communication and personal identity. In H. Loeb (ed.), Changing traditions II: Ethnographic resources for art education (pp. 3034). Birmingham, Birmingham Polytechnic: Department of Art. Lucas, T., Henze, R., & Donato, R. (1990). Promoting the success of Latino language minority students: An exploratory study of six High Schools. Harvard Educational Review, 60(3), 315 340. Ministry of Education. (2008). Absorbing processes of immigrant children. In http://cms.education. gov.il/EducationCMS/Units/Olim/TahalichHaKlita [in Hebrew]. Ministry of Immigration. (2008). Immigration to Israel. In http://www.moia.gov.il/NR/rdonlyres/ F844435F-4C5B-48D6-ACCA-D8032896CB1A/0/matz2005.pdf [in Hebrew]. Moore, A. (1999). Teaching multicultured students. New York: Falmer Press. Montague, N.S. (1997). Critical components for dual language programs. Bilingual Research Journal, 21(4), 409417. Mor-Sommerfeld, A. (2002). Language mosaic. Developing literacy in a second/new language: A new perspective. Reading, 36(3), 99105. Mor-Sommerfeld, A., Azaiza, F, and Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. (2007). Into the future Towards bilingual education in Israel manifesto. Education, Citizenship, Society Journal, 2(1), 522. Nieto, S. (2002). Language, culture and teaching. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Olmedo, I.M. (1992). Teacher expectations and the bilingual child. Action in Teacher Education, 14(2), 17. OMalley, M.J., & Chamot, A.U. (1990). Learning Strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Language Awareness

203

Saville-Troike, M. (2000). Causes and consequences of language maintenance/shift. In E. Olshtain & G. Horenczyk (eds.), Language, identity, and immigration (pp. 159171). Jerusalem: The Magnes press, Hebrew University. Shohamy, E. (1994). Issues of language planning in Israel: Language and ideology. In R. Lambert (ed.), Language planning around the world: Contexts and systemic change (pp. 131141). Washington: National Foreign Language Center. Silverman, D. (1993). Interpreting qualitative data. London: SAGE Publications. Spolsky, B., & Shohamy, E. (1999). The languages of Israel: Policy, ideology and practice. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Van Dijk, T. (2002). Critical discourse studies: A sociocognitive approach. In R. Wodak & M. Mayer (eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp. 95120). London: SAGE. Wodak, R. (1989). Language power and ideology: Studies in political discourse. Benjamins Amsterdam: John. Yelenevskaya, M.N., & Fialkova, L. (2003). From muteness to eloquence: Immigrant narratives about languages. Language Awareness, 12(1), 3048. Young, A., & H elot, C. (2003). Language awareness and/or language learning in French primary schools today. Language Awareness, 12(3/4), 236246.

Copyright of Language Awareness is the property of Multilingual Matters and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.