International Multilingual Research Journal Immigrant ...

This article was downloaded by: [Schwartz, Mila] On: 13 August 2010 Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 925755876] Publisher Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 3741 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Multilingual Research Journal

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t775653684

Immigrant Parents' Choice of a Bilingual Versus Monolingual Kindergarten for Second-Generation Children: Motives, Attitudes, and Factors

Mila Schwartza; Victor Moinb; Mark Leikinc; Anna Breitkopfd a Oranim Academic College of Education and Edmond J. Safra Brain Research Center for the Study of Learning Disabilities, Department of Learning Disabilities, Faculty of Education, University of Haifa, Israel b The Center for Research and Study of the Family School of Social Work, Faculty of Social Welfare & Health Sciences, University of Haifa, Israel c Edmond J. Safra Brain Research Center for the Study of Learning Disabilities, Department of Learning Disabilities, Faculty of Education, University of Haifa, Israel d Helsinki Collegium for Advanced Studies, University of Helsinki, Finland Online publication date: 12 August 2010 To cite this Article Schwartz, Mila , Moin, Victor , Leikin, Mark and Breitkopf, Anna(2010) 'Immigrant Parents' Choice of a

Bilingual Versus Monolingual Kindergarten for Second-Generation Children: Motives, Attitudes, and Factors', International Multilingual Research Journal, 4: 2, 107 — 124 To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/19313152.2010.499038 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19313152.2010.499038

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

International Multilingual Research Journal, 4: 107–124, 2010 Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1931-3152 print / 1931-3160 online DOI: 10.1080/19313152.2010.499038

Immigrant Parents’ Choice of a Bilingual Versus Monolingual Kindergarten for Second-Generation Children: Motives, Attitudes, and Factors Mila Schwartz

Downloaded By: [Schwartz, Mila] At: 08:35 13 August 2010

Oranim Academic College of Education and Edmond J. Safra Brain Research Center for the Study of Learning Disabilities, Department of Learning Disabilities, Faculty of Education, University of Haifa, Israel

Victor Moin The Center for Research and Study of the Family School of Social Work, Faculty of Social Welfare & Health Sciences, University of Haifa, Israel

Mark Leikin Edmond J. Safra Brain Research Center for the Study of Learning Disabilities, Department of Learning Disabilities, Faculty of Education, University of Haifa, Israel

Anna Breitkopf Helsinki Collegium for Advanced Studies, University of Helsinki, Finland

This study investigated how immigrant parents describe and explain their family language policy concerning their child’s preschool bilingual development, and also explored the factors linked to the parents’ choice of bilingual or monolingual kindergarten for their child. The study design was based on a comparison of 2 groups of parents: those who chose bilingual versus monolingual kindergartens. The research model consisted of 3 groups of variables: the sociocultural and linguistic profile of these groups of parents, their language policy (language ideology, practice, and management), and the parents’ representations about their child’s proficiency in the both languages. The article presents results of a self-administered questionnaire. The sample (n = 111) included bilingual (Russian–Hebrew) young adult immigrants in Israel from the former Soviet Union. Three factors were found to be most significantly related to the parents’ choice of kindergarten and their general attitudes toward their child’s bilingual development: the number of children in the family, the parents’ identification with Russian culture, and the child’s well-being as a motivating factor in the choice of kindergarten. The

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Mila Schwartz, Ph.D., Oranim College of Education, Department of Learning Disabilities, Faculty of Education, University of Haifa, Mount Carmel, Haifa 31905, Israel. E-mail: [email protected]

108

SCHWARTZ ET AL.

results also show that, for both groups, the FLP was vaguely defined and unplanned, and it varied considerably within 1 immigrant language community.


Keywords: family language policy, parents’ perceptions, preschool bilingual education, Russianspeaking Israeli, second-generation immigrants

A rapid increase in the flow of immigration and the growing cultural diversity of the world’s major countries can present challenges to societies and to their educational systems (e.g., Cummins, 2000; Extra & Verhoeven, 1999; Suarez-Orozco, 2007). One of the serious problems confronting immigrants and their host societies is the integration of the second-generation immigrants within their host community, the maintenance of their heritage language and culture, and development of cultural tolerance (Fishman, 1991, 2001; Wong Fillmore, 2000). The past 20 years have seen an unprecedented upsurge of interest in the bilingual development and education of second-generation immigrants on the whole and, in particular, in the maintenance, loss, and revitalization of heritage language, its intergenerational transmission, and the impact of bilingualism on immigrant children’s cognitive development and emotional state (e.g., Baker, 2001; Extra & Verhoeven, 1999; Saville-Troike, 2000). There is a clear consensus concerning the critical role of the family in children’s early bilingual development, in maintaining the heritage language and its intergenerational transmission (e.g., Baker, 2001; Fishman, 1991; Spolsky, 2007; Wong Fillmore, 1991). The language policy that immigrant parents adopt toward the early bilingual development of their children and the parents’ decisions about a choice of form and program for preschool bilingual education are all important factors affecting the integration of the second-generation immigrants within their host community and the maintenance of their heritage language and culture. This study investigated how immigrant parents describe and explain their family language policy (FLP) concerning their child’s preschool bilingual education. More specifically, the study analyzed the sociocultural and linguistic profiles of two groups of parents who chose a bilingual or monolingual kindergarten for their children. This study explored the parents’ general attitudes toward their children’s bilingual education, their motives for their choice of kindergarten, and the factors related to their choices.

FAMILY LANGUAGE POLICY FLP is a relatively new and emerging research field that, according to King, Fogle, and LoganTerry (2008), “provides an integrated overview of research on how languages are managed, learned and negotiated within families” (p. 907). The study of FLP was based on Spolsky’s (2004) model of language policy (Barkhuizen & Knoch, 2006; King & Fogle, 2006; King et al., 2008; Kopeliovich, 2006; Schwartz, 2008). This model includes three main components: family language ideology (the goals, plans, intentions, and beliefs concerning language development), family language practice (intrafamily language communication), and family language management (ways of regulating linguistic development). The researchers examined various aspects of FLP in different sociocultural contexts. King and Fogle (2006) studied how parents make decisions concerning additive Spanish–English bilingualism for their children. Hickey (1999) examined the sociocultural and linguistic profiles of

BILINGUAL VS. MONOLINGUAL KINDERGARTEN

109

parents choosing Irish-medium preschools. The studies by Wong Fillmore (2000), Okita (2002), Tannenbaum (2005), Tannenbaum and Howie (2002), and Kopeliovich (2006) addressed the emotional aspects of FLP with regard to home language maintenance or loss and to raising bilingual children. A range of studies also explored parental decisions concerning bilingual programs for their children in kindergarten (e.g., Amaral, 2001), and the parents’ attitudes toward these programs (e.g., Sheffer, 2003). It is well-known that there are various forms of children’s preschool education. This study focused on kindergarten as one of the early and widespread forms of preschool education.


BILINGUAL KINDERGARTENS IN ISRAEL Kindergarten is a form of education for young children that serves as a transition from their homes to the commencement of more formal schooling. In most countries, kindergarten is part of the preschool system. In parts of the United States, Canada, and Australia, the word kindergarten is used to describe the first year of compulsory education. In Israel, a kindergarten (or Gan) system has two streams: one that is private and commercial and one that is state-funded. Attendance in kindergarten is compulsory in Israel from the age of 5 years. Private kindergartens are supervised by the Ministry of Education and cater to children from the ages of 3 to 5. In contrast, state kindergartens cater to children from 3 to 6 years in three age groups: ages 3 to 4, 4 to 5, and 5 to 6 (what is referred to as the Gan Hova). This study focused on immigrant parents’ FLP concerning the choice of early bilingual education for their children from ages 2 to 5, before compulsory kindergarten. The study design was based on the comparison of two groups of parents: those who chose bilingual kindergartens and those who chose monolingual kindergartens for their children. Bilingual (Russian–Hebrew) kindergartens in Israel were established by an organization of Russian-speaking immigrant teachers with the aim of offering programs outside the school setting (Spolsky & Shohamy, 1999). Thus, this organization operates as many as 20 bilingual kindergartens. Education in these kindergartens is based on the first language first approach. This means that from the onset (age 1) of the kindergarten up to age 3, Russian (i.e., the first language [L1]) is the predominant language of instruction and communication with the children, and they have passive exposure to Hebrew by means of songs and rhymes. From age 3, Hebrew (i.e., the second language [L2]) is then added to Russian. It is also noteworthy that the staffs of these kindergartens are mostly native Russian speakers. The target groups of the kindergartens are, as a rule, the second-generation children of immigrants from the former Soviet Union (FSU). The research population consisted of young adult Russian-speaking immigrants in Israel.

THE RUSSIAN-SPEAKING COMMUNITY IN ISRAEL According to government sources, 992,236 immigrants arrived in Israel from the FSU between 1989 and 2008, which is approximately one fifth of the total Jewish population of the country (Ministry of Immigration, 2008). The Russian-speaking community constitutes the largest subcultural community in the country (Solodkina, 2007; Spolsky & Shohamy, 1999). This immigrant group has actively created a Russian-speaking sociolinguistic milieu (Ben-Rafael et al., 2006).


110

SCHWARTZ ET AL.

The development of highly organized social structures at the local level—including consumer markets, educational and cultural institutions, local party branches, newspapers, magazines, and television (Ben-Rafael et al., 2006)—has provided favorable conditions for maintaining heritage language and culture. The main acculturation strategy of this community is integration—combining maintenance of the original culture and adaptation to the host culture (Horenczyk & Ben-Shalom, 2006; Horowitz & Leshem, 1998; Lissitsa, 2007). Horenczyk and Ben-Shalom concluded that “most research evidence conveys a largely bicultural (integrationist) image of Israeli immigrants from the FSU” (p. 299). These characteristics of the Russian-speaking community can explain its declared objective to retain Russian language and culture, in particular, transmitting Russian to the second generation (Ben-Rafael et al., 2006; Donitsa-Schmidt, 1999; Leshem & Lissak, 1999). However, an inconsistent language policy in the state of Israel has hindered the realization of these intentions. One important factor is that the original ideology of the hegemony of Hebrew has changed over the last decade, and the official language policy in the Israeli education system has subsequently moved toward multilingualism. In 1996, the Ministry of Education announced “a new language education policy,” recognizing the legitimate right of each community to learn its native language. Nevertheless, this new policy is still at the declaration stage, and has not been fully implemented in education practices. The responsibility for the maintenance and intergenerational transmission of Russian to the second generation is, therefore, left to the parents (Niznik, 2007).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND OBJECTIVES This research model included three groups of variables: (a) the families’ sociocultural and linguistic profiles, (b) the FLP, and (c) the parents’ representation about some consequences of FLP: the child’s proficiency in both languages and his or her satisfaction with the kindergarten. The first group of variables helped to create the family’s sociocultural and linguistic profiles. This group included those variables that, in accordance with results of various studies, could be related to FLP. More specifically, the focus was on family structure (Baker, 2001; Fishman, 1991; Harris, 1995; Spolsky, 2007; Wong Fillmore, 1991), on parental education (Allard & Landry, 1992; Doucet 1991; Kloss, 1966; Lambert & Taylor, 1996), socioeconomic status (Harres, 1989; Lambert & Taylor, 1996; Williams, 1987), acculturation to host culture (Baker, 2001; Clyne, 1982; Doucet, 1991), parents’ language competence (Saville-Troike 2000), and their self-identification as “good” parents (King & Fogle, 2006). The second group included three main components of FLP: family language ideology (attitudes toward bilingual education and motives for the choice of kindergarten), family language practice (intrafamily language communication), and family language management (planning language communication with the child). The third group reflects the parents’ representation about the consequences of FLP: the child’s language competence, as well as the children’s and parents’ satisfaction with the kindergarten. The study design was based on a comparison of the FLP of two groups of parents: those who chose a bilingual Russian–Hebrew speaking kindergarten and those who chose the monolingual Hebrew-speaking option. The first objective was to ascertain the similarities and differences


111

between these groups, to compare their sociocultural and linguistic profiles, and to describe their own FLPs and opinions about the impact of that kindergarten on their children’s language development. The second objective was to explore the factors linked to the parents’ attitudes toward bilingual kindergartens, their actual choices of kindergarten, and the correlation between their attitudes and their actual choice. METHOD


Procedure and Participants The research population included young adult immigrants aged approximately 20 to 35 years from the FSU in Israel, and the parents of Israeli-born children aged 3 and 4 years old. The sample comprised 101 young adults (the mean age was 31.7, SD = 4.0). A multistage, random, purposeful sampling was used. In the first stage, three bilingual and five monolingual kindergartens were randomly chosen, and these were located in similar neighborhoods in the north of Israel, in a region with a large Russian-speaking immigrant community. In the second stage, a total of 112 L1 (Russian) questionnaires were distributed to the parents of children aged 3 and 4 years old. Both parents were asked to complete the questionnaires separately. One hundred-one parents from 55 families agreed to participate in the research and returned the questionnaires. The high response rate (90%) can be attributed to the parents’ considerable interest in the preschool education of the second-generation Russian–Jewish immigrants in Israel (Ben-Rafael et al., 2006; Donitsa-Schmidt, 1999; Horenczyk & Ben-Shalom, 2006; Leshem & Lissak, 1999; Niznic, 2007). The parents were divided into two groups according to the type of preschool setting (bilingual vs. monolingual) attended by their children: (a) parents who chose bilingual (Russian–Hebrew) education (the bilingual group; n = 59; 32 families), and (b) parents who chose monolingual (Hebrew) education (the monolingual group; n = 42; 23 families). The questionnaires were sent to both parents, but in nine families, the data were obtained only from the mothers—five single-parent families and four fathers (2 in each group)—who did not respond due to time pressure. The overall sample included 101 parents: 55 mothers and 46 fathers. The mean age of participants was 31.3 (SD = 4), the mean number of years of education was over 15.10 (SD = 2.7), and the mean marital duration was 7.7 years. No significant differences were found between the groups for these characteristics. The only significant difference between these groups was in the number of children: In the monolingual group, the number of children was higher: 1.74 as compared to 1.41 in the monolingual group (t = 2.45, p = .016). All participants were minority-language parents. The L1 of all participants and their children was Russian, which was the dominant communication language between family members, including the child. In all families, both parents were bilingual, and they reported relatively high language competence in Russian and Hebrew. Instrument The instrument used at this stage of the research was a self-administrated questionnaire for parents, which was developed specifically for this study: Bilingual Education: Pros and Cons (Moin,

112

SCHWARTZ ET AL.


Schwartz, & Leikin, 2007). The content and structure of the questionnaire are consistent with the research model. First, a pilot study was conducted with 10 families, 5 from each group. The final version of the questionnaire included 58 questions. The questionnaire took the parents approximately 30 min to complete, included the following groups of variables: 1. Family sociocultural and linguistic profile: sociodemographic characteristics, degree of acculturation in the host society, language competence, and attitudes and expectations concerning the child’s development. 2. The three main components of FLP: the parents’ ideology (their attitudes toward bilingual education and motives for their choice of kindergarten), practice (languages used for intrafamily language communication), and management (planning choice of language for the parent–child communication). 3. The parents’ representation about some consequences of FLP, such as the child’s language competence in Russian and Hebrew, and the parents’ and child’s satisfaction with the kindergarten. Sociocultural and Linguistic Profile of the Family Several variables referred to sociodemographic characteristics about the parents’ age, marital status, number of children, education level, and their assessment of the family’s income. Family income was assessed on a 4-point scale, ranging from 1 (insufficient for acquiring most necessary goods and services) to 4 (sufficient for acquiring most necessary goods and services). The variables relating to the parents’ acculturation in Israel included the duration of their residence in Israel, their age at immigration, their education in Israel, and their cultural selfidentification. The parents were asked to rate: “To what degree do you feel a sense of belonging to Jewish culture?” The same question was asked to measure their sense of belonging to the Russian culture. Responses were given on a 5-point scale, ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (completely). The children’s characteristics were assessed by their current age, gender, the age at which they began preschool education, their age at onset of speech, and their position in their family. The parents’ language competence in Hebrew and Russian was measured using four “cando” items for each language (speaking, comprehending, writing, and reading). The participants assessed their ability to perform these activities on a 5-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very well). Cronbach’s alpha was .93 for Hebrew and .78 for Russian. The parents’ attitudes and expectations included their opinions about their desired occupation and the country of residence for their children (open questions); the degree of optimism they felt concerning their opportunities for a successful future for their child in Israel (1-item measure on a 5-point scale); and the parents’ willingness for self-sacrifice for the educational benefit of their children (4 items), with responses given on a scale ranging from 1 (a low degree of willingness) to 5 (a high degree of willingness). This willingness may be interpreted as a measure of participants’ self-perception as being “good” parents. The factor analysis suggested the presence of two separate domains, producing a two-factor solution: career sacrifice (such as devoting more time to childrearing and education at the expense of improving personal educational and professional levels) and personal sacrifice (such as allocating a larger portion of the family budget to the child’s education and development at the expense of personal needs). Cronbach’s alpha for the two factors was .66 and .50, respectively.


113

Family Language Policy


This part of the questionnaire addressed the three components of the FLP: the family language ideology, the practices (intrafamily language communication), and the family language management. Family language ideology was assessed using two variables: the attitudes toward bilingual education and the motives for the parent’s kindergarten choice. The attitudes toward the bilingual kindergarten were calculated as a mean of the following four items: 1. The child needs psychological comfort, so a bilingual kindergarten is preferable, as they speak a language he or she understands. 2. Immersion in a language environment is very helpful in language acquisition; therefore, a Hebrew-speaking kindergarten is preferable. Despite initial difficulties, the child will be better prepared for school and for life in Israel. 3. Learning Russian and Hebrew simultaneously is preferable. 4. Our children spend enough time in a Russian-speaking environment (family, friends, etc.), and will acquire Russian in any case, so there is no need to promote Russian in the kindergarten. Respondents were asked to rate the degree of their agreement with each statement on a 5-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 5 (completely agree) to 1 (completely disagree). The higher the scores, the more positive the attitudes toward bilingual kindergarten education. The Cronbach’s alpha was .78. Twelve items were used to measure the motives for kindergarten choice. The respondents were asked to rate the degree of importance of the different factors underlying their choice of a kindergarten (e.g., payment or professional level of the staff) on a 5-point scale, ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very great importance). The factor analysis (Principal Component, Rotation Varimax) was performed to explore the main groups of motives. Three groups of motives (subscales) were derived from the factor analysis: (a) the parents’ convenience (accessibility of the preschool, terms of payment, and kindergarten hours), (b) the child’s well-being (the professional level of the teaching staff, the instructional methods and strategies, the facilities, and the number of children in the group), and (c) the language-based motivation (teaching in Russian and in Hebrew, teaching in Hebrew only, teaching in Russian only, or the staff speaks both Hebrew and Russian). These subscales had good internal consistency: the Cronbach’s alpha was .57 for the parents’ convenience, .70 for the child’s well-being, and .69 for the language-based motives. The indexes of importance of all these groups of motives were calculated as the mean of items included in each group. Note that no item was omitted based on the factor analysis. Family language practice was assessed by the communication language between the spouses (1 item), the parent–child communication (4 items), and the child–parent communication (1 item). A 5-point scale was used to assess the language of communication: 1 (Hebrew only), 2 (mainly Hebrew), 3 (Hebrew and Russian to an equal degree), 4 (mainly Russian), and 5 (Russian only). The index of the parent–child language practice was calculated as the mean of the estimates of the communication language in four contexts: reading a book, talking, asking to do something, and asking a question (Cronbach’s alpha was .87). The higher the index, the more Russian used in the child–parent communication.

114

SCHWARTZ ET AL.

Family language management was assessed by two variables: the planning communication language with the child and the parent’s spontaneous choice of communication language with the child. Planning communication language with the child was calculated as the mean of the following four items: (a) discussing the initial language choice with the spouse, (b) reading literature on bilingualism, (c) consulting a professional, and (d) asking friends (Cronbach’s alpha was .53). The response scale for these items ranged from 1 (not at all) to 5 (to a large extent). The parent’s spontaneous choice of communication language with the child was evaluated using one item: “To what extent was the choice of communication language with your child made spontaneously?,” which used the same response scale.


The Parents’ Representation Concerning Some Consequences of FLP The consequences of FLP were assessed by the parents’ representations of their child’s language competence in Russian and Hebrew, and the parents’ and child’s satisfaction with the kindergarten. The child’s language competence in Russian and Hebrew. The parents were asked to rate their child’s language competence in Russian and Hebrew using “can-do” speaking and comprehension items, and to estimate the child’s language competence compared to other children of the same age. All responses were given on a 5-point scale. Cronbach’s alpha was .83 for competence in Russian and .93 for Hebrew. Satisfaction with the kindergarten. The parents were asked to rate their own and their child’s satisfaction with the kindergarten choice on a 5-point Likert-scale, ranging from 5 (completely satisfied) to 1 (completely dissatisfied).

RESULTS Two main research objectives are examined in this section. The first involves comparing the main characteristics of parents who chose a bilingual (Russian–Hebrew) kindergarten with those who chose a monolingual (Hebrew) kindergarten, as well as their sociocultural and linguistic profiles and their description of their own FLP and opinions about the impact of the kindergarten on their child’s language development. The second main object involves exploring the factors related to the parents’ attitudes toward bilingual kindergartens, their actual choices of kindergarten, and the correlation between their attitudes and their actual choices. Regression and discriminant analyses were then conducted. Sociocultural and Linguistic Profile of the Family The families’ sociodemographic characteristics. Great similarity was found between the families in the two groups. The families consisted of young adults (the mean age was 32.1 for the bilingual group and 31.1 for the monolingual group) with a high level of education. Ninetyfive percent of the families in both groups were two-parent families, and their marital duration


115


was approximately 8 years. The families’ economic situations were relatively good: 89% in the bilingual group and 86% in the monolingual group reported sufficient income for acquiring the necessary goods and services. Statistically significant, but relatively low, differences were obtained only on their educational levels: M = 14.5, SD = 2.19 for the bilingual group and M = 15.7, SD = 3.14 for the monolingual group (t = 2.45, p = .041) and for their number of children: M = 1.41, SD = 0.62 for the bilingual group and M = 1.7, SD = 0.73 for the monolingual group (t = 2.45, p = .016) for the monolingual group. Child characteristics. The children in the two groups did not significantly differ on the following measures: age (a mean age of 2.9 years for the bilingual and 2.8 years for the monolingual group), the onset of speech (1.7 and 1.5 years, respectively), the age at entering preschool (1.9 and 1.7 years, respectively), and the birth order in the family (the first child in 76% of the bilingual kindergarten families and in 60% of the monolingual families). For all children in both groups, Russian was their L1. The parents’ acculturation in Israel. The comparison between the groups on the parents’ acculturation patterns revealed considerable similarity (see Table 1). Most parents arrived in Israel during late adolescence (at a mean age of 18.8 years for the bilingual and 19.5 for the monolingual group), and their duration of residence in the host country was relatively long (M = 13.3, SD = 3.60 for the bilingual and M = 11.7, SD = 4.85 for the monolingual group). Furthermore, the mean duration of the parents’ education in Israel was approximately 5 years. TABLE 1 The Sociocultural and Linguistic Profile of Parents in the Bilingual and Monolingual Groups Bilingual Group (n = 59) Variable Parents’ acculturation in Israel Duration of residence in Israel (years) Age at immigration (years) Education in Israel (years) Identification with Jewish culture (raw score) Identification with Russian culture (raw score) Parents’ language competence Hebrew (raw score) Russian (raw score) Parents’ attitudes and expectations regarding the children Israel as desired residence (%) Optimism toward children’s future in Israel (%) Willingness for self-sacrifice (raw score) Career sacrifice Personal sacrifice ∗ p < .01.

Monolingual Group (n = 42)

Differences

M

SD

M

SD

t/χ 2

13.3 18.8 4.9 3.4 4.1

3.60 4.67 3.01 1.05 0.79

11.7 19.5 5.4 3.5 3.6

4.85 5.98 3.82 0.99 0.90

1.90 0.67 0.63 0.16 3.00∗

4.3 4.6

0.73 0.58

4.2 4.7

0.94 0.56

0.65 0.40

53 76 3.6 4.4

χ 2 = 1.38 χ 2 = 3.30

64 84 0.88 0.56

3.6 4.2

0.97 0.86

0.15 1.78

116

SCHWARTZ ET AL.

All participants were bicultural—that is, they self-identified with both the Russian and Jewish culture. Regarding their identification with Jewish culture, no significant differences were found between the groups. At the same time, it appears that the bilingual kindergarten group tended to identify with Russian culture more than the comparison group.


The parents’ language competence. No differences were found between the two groups in the participants’ competence in Hebrew and in the Russian languages. In both groups, Russian language competence was higher than Hebrew according to the one-paired t-test: t = 2.70, p = .008 for the bilingual group and t = 3.25, p = .002 for the monolingual group). Thus, self-reported mastery in both target languages was relatively high. The parents’ attitudes and expectations. The groups did not significantly differ in parents’ expectations for their children’s future residence and success in Israel. Although most parents believed that their children could attain successful careers in Israel, a significant number wished to see their children living in other countries (47% in the bilingual group and 36% in the monolingual group). No significant differences were found between the groups on the parents’ willingness for selfsacrifice in both personal and career domains for the sake of their children’s care, development, and education. In both groups, parents demonstrated a relatively high level of willingness for self-sacrifice but, according to the paired t-test, willingness for self-sacrifice in the personal needs domain was found to be significantly higher than in the career domain (t = 6.94, p = .000). In sum, both groups of parents can be considered to be “good” parents in their readiness to devote time and effort to raising and educating their children.

Family Language Policy Comparisons between the groups on the three FLP components (family language ideology, practice, and family language management) are presented in Table 2. Family language ideology. Family language ideology was examined by comparing the groups on two variables: attitude toward bilingual kindergartens and motives for kindergarten choice. The results showed significant differences between the groups on all measures of the family language ideology. The bilingual group was more oriented toward bilingual education than the monolingual group. Moreover, in explaining their kindergarten choice, the bilingual group attributed greater importance to the child’s well-being (e.g., the professional level of the teaching staff, the instructional method and strategies, and facilities) and language than the monolingual group. The latter attributed greater significance to their convenience (e.g., accessibility of the preschool and the terms of payment) than the bilingual group. Family language practices. Although Russian was reported as the preferred communication language in both groups, the monolingual group used less Russian in both their parent–child and child–parent interactions than the bilingual group.


117

TABLE 2 Family Language Policy in the Bilingual and Monolingual Groups (Raw Scores)


Variable Family language ideology Attitudes toward the bilingual kindergarten Motives for the kindergarten choice Convenient for parents Well-being of children Language-related motives Family language practice Russian language practice between spouses Parent–child Russian language practice Child–parent Russian language practice Family language management Planning language practice with the children Spontaneous language practice with the children

Bilingual Group (n = 59)

Monolingual Group (n = 42)

M

SD

M

SD

t

4.3

0.58

3.1

0.83

8.78∗

3.6 4.4 3.8

0.76 0.39 0.62

4.1 4.0 3.0

0.56 0.63 1.04

4.04∗ 3.96∗ 5.03∗

4.5 4.5 4.6

0.66 0.48 0.53

4.3 4.0 3.8

0.61 0.71 0.93

1.27 4.66∗ 5.69∗

1.6 4.0

0.83 1.76

1.9 3.3

1.09 2.00

1.75 1.85

∗ p < .001.

Family language management. Both groups were rather similar in reporting a strong tendency for spontaneous behavior in initial language practice with the child and an absence of language planning. The results showed that 67% of the parents reported a spontaneous dominant behavioral pattern in the decision about their language use with the child. Overall, only 44% of respondents reported discussing the issue with their spouse. Some participants commented that they agreed on a given course of action without talking about it. Moreover, only 12% of the parents had read articles on bilingualism, and less than 5% consulted professional sources (such as teachers or speech therapists). In general, the parents’ language practice with their children seemed to have been spontaneous and unplanned. The Parents’ Representations About Some Consequences of FLP First, the parents’ representations about their child’s proficiency in both languages were investigated. Both groups of parents stated the same, relatively high appraisals of their children’s competence in Russian. The mean appraisals on the 5-point scale was 4.3 for both groups (t = 0.56, p = .52). At the same time, the parents in the monolingual group estimated their children’s Hebrew competence to be higher (M = 4.1) than the parents in the bilingual group (M = 2.7). These differences were found to be statistically significant (t = 9.20, p = .001). In both groups, the parents noted that children were satisfied with their kindergartens, and that they felt themselves to be very comfortable (M = 4.7 for the bilingual group and M = 4.6 for the monolingual group; t = 0.58, p = .56). The parents themselves were very satisfied with their choices of kindergartens in both groups (M = 4.6 for the bilingual group and M = 4.3 for the monolingual group; t = 2.40, p = .02). Nevertheless, the parents in the bilingual group were more satisfied with their chosen setting than were the parents in the monolingual group.

118

SCHWARTZ ET AL.

Parents’ Attitudes Toward Bilingual Education and Actual Choices of Bilingual Versus Monolingual Preschool Education To investigate links between the parents’ attitudes toward bilingual education and their actual choices, a correlation analysis and the Somers’s directional measure were used. Multiple regressions were performed to examine the variables predicting individual differences in the parents’ attitudes toward bilingual education. The parents’ actual choice of a bilingual versus monolingual kindergarten was entered as a categorical variable. To explore which variables were significantly related to this choice, a discriminant analysis was conducted.


Correlation Analysis As expected, the attitudes toward the bilingual kindergarten strongly correlated with the actual choice of kindergarten (r = .66, p = .000). More important, however, is that this link was found to be asymmetric. According to the Somers Directional measure, attitudes toward the bilingual kindergarten depended more on the choice of kindergarten (Somers’s D coefficient = .80, p = .000) than vice versa (Somers’s D coefficient = .43, p = .000). In other words, if parents actually chose the bilingual kindergarten for their children, a high level of probability was found for reporting on positive attitudes toward bilingual education. However, the fact that they reported these attitudes did not mean that they actually chose the bilingual kindergarten. In other words, despite their positive attitudes, a significant number of parents chose monolingual kindergartens.

Regression Analysis Multiple regressions were performed to determine the variables predicting individual differences in the parents’ attitudes toward bilingual education. Parental attitude toward bilingual education was entered as a dependent variable. Only those variables that significantly differentiated the compared groups in family background and language policy (number of children in the family, identification with Russian culture, motives for kindergarten choice, and intrafamily language practice) were entered as explanatory variables. According to the multiple regression analysis, 49% of the variance in the dependent variable was explained by only three explanatory variables: the number of children in the family, the parents’ identification with Russian culture, and the well-being of the children as the motivating factor in kindergarten choice (see Table 3). A discriminant analysis was conducted to determine which variables distinguish between the groups, based on the parents’ actual choice of bilingual or monolingual education for their children. This analysis included the same six variables that were used in the regression analysis (i.e., the number of children in the family, the identification with Russian culture, motives for kindergarten choice, and the intrafamily language practice). The results show that these variables successfully differentiate between the parents of the bilingual and monolingual groups (Wilks’s = .58; n = 101; χ 2 = 50.40, p = .000). This analysis also demonstrated that these variables predict the actual choice of the bilingual or monolingual kindergarten for 79% of all parents.


119

TABLE 3 Results of the Multiple Regression Analysis for the Parents’ Attitudes Toward Bilingual Education (df = 97) Variable


Background of family language policy Number of children in the family Identification with Russian culture Motives for the choice of kindergarten Convenience of parents Well-being of child Intrafamily language practice Parent–child language practice Child–parent language practice

β

Standardized β

t

p

−.28 .29

−.21 .28

−2.58 3.33

.011 .001

−.02 .65

−.02 .40

−0.23 4.67

.818 .000

.01 .26

.01 .19

0.11 1.75

.912 .083

Note. F = 14.673∗ ; R2 = .492. ∗ p < .001.

DISCUSSION The objective of the study was to examine the main characteristics of parents who chose a bilingual (Russian–Hebrew) kindergarten as compared to those who chose a monolingual (Hebrew) kindergarten. The study also explored the factors linked to the parents’ attitudes toward bilingual kindergartens, their actual choice of kindergarten, and the correlation between their attitudes and their actual choice. Families’ Sociocultural and Linguistic Profile: Similarities and Differences This study produced several important findings. First, both groups of parents had similar sociocultural and linguistic profiles: acculturation characteristics, competence in the two languages, and willingness to sacrifice personal needs for the sake of their children’s education and development. Second, the significant differences between the groups were found only on 2 out of 12 variables that characterized their sociocultural and linguistic profile: the number of children in the family and the identification with Russian culture. Concerning the parents’ cultural selfidentification, not surprisingly, the parents in the bilingual group tended to identify with Russian culture more than the parents in the comparison group. As identification with Russian culture significantly contributed to the variance in the parents’ reported attitude toward bilingual education, it can be assumed that the parents in the bilingual group viewed the choice of education for their children as being fundamental to their ability to transmit their original culture to the next generation. The finding that the number of children in the bilingual group was significantly smaller than in the monolingual group was rather unexpected. It is clear from the data that the more children in the family, the lower the probability of choosing a bilingual kindergarten. This result is particularly meaningful, as the number of children is one of the three variables that significantly contributed to predicting individual differences in parental attitudes toward bilingual


120

SCHWARTZ ET AL.

education. The interpretation of this finding is based on two complementary sources of influence: the siblings’ effect and the effect of the number of children on FLP. More specifically, as siblings can play an important role in language management within the family, the presence of older children necessarily promotes L2 usage and may covertly reinforce the parents’ decision in favor of a monolingual kindergarten (Dittmar, Spolsky, & Walters, 2002; Kyratzis, 2004, Spolsky, 2007). Spolsky (2007) argued that the older children bring the majority language into the home and occasionally speak it with the parents and regularly speak it with the younger children. However, “as long as there are only two adults and one child in the home, matters are fairly straightforward” (Spolsky, 2007, p. 433). Controlling the process of the child’s language socialization appears easier, as long as parental authority is not undermined by interference from older siblings. In sum, these data support the argument that the presence of siblings is relevant to both language practice and management in immigrant families (Baker, 2001; Spolsky, 2007; Wong Fillmore, 1991). It is also possible that couples with fewer children have more opportunities for the intergenerational transmission of the native language through their choice of early bilingual education than those couples who have more children. Variables, such as time pressure and childrearing, in the presence of competing demands may contribute to couples with a larger number of children, relinquishing their efforts to retain their L1 and to be influenced to a greater extent by the suitable conditions in choosing a kindergarten. This may be the reason why parents in the monolingual group, having more children, attributed greater significance to matters of convenience than the parents in the bilingual group. It should also be noted that, although the groups were relatively similar in sociocultural and linguistic profiles, they differed on most characteristics of the FLP itself.

Family Language Ideology and Practice: Cardinal Differences Between the Groups Differences were found in all components of language ideology and practice. The focus of this section is on two major findings concerning FLP: the motives for the kindergarten choice and family language management. Concerning the motives for kindergarten choice, results from this study show that the child’s well-being played a greater role in the choice of kindergarten for parents in the bilingual group than for parents in the monolingual group. The parents in the bilingual group revealed their emphasis on such extra-linguistic factors as the quality of education, student–teacher relationships, and the quality of the facilities. This finding is consistent with results reported by Hickey (1999), which was mentioned earlier, and the results might also partly be attributed to the parents’ faith in the higher quality of education provided by bilingual kindergartens. This belief may be related to the nature of the teaching staff in the Russian– Hebrew-speaking kindergartens, who are mainly immigrant teachers from the FSU. According to Epstein and Kheimets (2000), Russian–Jewish immigrant parents, overall, prefer immigrant teachers engaged in bilingual education over the local teachers employed in monolingual education because of their familiar teaching styles and strategies. Most of the teachers engaged in early bilingual education have taught at elite schools in the FSU and base their teaching on pedagogical principles aimed at fulfilling the children’s academic and cognitive potential in early childhood, in accordance with Vygotsky’s (1962) theory of sociocultural development (Dunstan, 1978).


121

Family Language Management: Unexpected Similarity A similarity was found between the groups in the patterns of family language management. The initial language choice in communication with their children was unplanned in both groups. Indeed, most parents in our study acknowledged having a spontaneous language policy. The absence of an explicit decision concerning the initial language choice in communication with the child may be interpreted, according to Spolsky and Shohamy (1999), as an absence of a conscious, knowledge-based FLP.


Parents’ Representations Concerning Some Consequences of FLP Regarding the consequences of the parents’ choice of bilingual versus monolingual education, the groups were found to be similar in their tendency for their increased use of Hebrew in communication with their children and in the positive changes in their children’s Hebrew language competence and practice. However, these changes were more significant among the children attending monolingual kindergartens. The reports of parents in the monolingual group indicate a greater effect of the Hebrew non-additive context on the modification of the parent–child language practice and more frequent Russian–Hebrew switching. At the same time, it seems that parents in the bilingual group were more successful in controlling their language practice when communicating with their children. These findings are broadly consistent with previous results reported by Wong Fillmore (1991). Limitations This study has several limitations. First, the sample did not represent all Russian–Jewish immigrants from the FSU. As a result, the relatively small sample size did not permit an examination of the differences in FLP between the various subcultural groups of immigrants from the FSU that might be distinguished, for example, by age, level of education, family status, ethnic and cultural belonging (e.g., Jews who immigrated from Georgia or the Middle East), and degree of religiosity (non-religious vs. religious parents). Second, only some factors related to FLP were included in this study. For example, such important issues as parent–child relationships and attachment, which have been found to be relevant to intergenerational transmission of a L1 in immigrant families (Tannenbaum, 2005), were not examined here. Third, in this study, FLP was examined only from parents’ perspective, and based on their self-reported descriptions of their own family language practice, ideology (beliefs and attitudes) and management. However, parental self-reports may have had a restricting effect on the findings because there may be a discrepancy between the declared and actual FLP (Schwartz, 2008). Fourth, although within this research project we also addressed the comparison between the mothers’ and fathers’ viewpoints on FLP, this aspect has not been presented within the limited framework of this article. Further Research Directions The article presents the results of the first stage of a larger research project studying FLP of immigrant parents concerning the early bilingual development of their children. Future research

122

SCHWARTZ ET AL.

aims to combine both quantitative and qualitative methods (Mackey & Gass, 2005) by applying the mixed-methods approach, a methodological triangulation meaning qualitative and quantitative methods, and, in particular, direct measuring of child’s linguistic behavior and proficiency in L1 and L2 (Schwartz, 2010). In addition, the FLP of parents belonging to different sociocultural groups should be examined. Finally, further research should focus on other intrafamily factors related to the FLP. To conclude, the study of the FLP of different immigrant parent groups in different sociocultural conditions can have practical issues in the field of parents and teachers instruction, as well as for planning and implementing the language policy at the state and community levels.


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This paper was supported by the grants awarded to Dr. Mila Schwartz by the 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.

REFERENCES Allard, R., & Landry, R. (1992). Ethnolinguistic vitality beliefs and language maintenance and loss. In W. Fase, K. Jaspaert, & S. Kroon (Eds.), Maintenance and loss of minority languages (pp. 173–195). Amsterdam: Benjamins. Amaral, O. (2001). Parents’ decisions about bilingual program models. Bilingual Research Journal, 25, 215–238. Baker, C. (2001). Foundation of bilingual education and bilingualism. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. Barkhuizen, G., & Knoch, U. (2006). Macro-level policy and micro-level planning Afrikaans-speaking immigrants in New Zealand. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 29(1), 310–318. Ben-Rafael, E., Lyubansky, M., Glöckner, O., Harris, P., Israel, Y., Jasper, W., et al. (2006). Building a diaspora: Russian Jews in Israel, Germany and the USA. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill. Clyne, M. (1982). Multilingual Australia. Melbourne, Australia: River Seine Publications. Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power, and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. Dittmar, N., Spolsky, B., & Walters, J. (2002). Convergence and divergence in second language acquisition and use: An examination of immigrant identities in Germany and Israel (Final Scientific Report Contract No. G-0500-157.04/96 GIF). Ramat-Gan, Israel/Berlin: Bar-Ilan University/Free University. Donitsa-Schmidt, S. (1999). Language maintenance or shift—Determinants of language choice among Soviet immigrants in Israel. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Toronto. Doucet, J. (1991). First generation of Serbo-Croatian speakers in Queensland: Language maintenance and language shift. In S. Romaine (Eds.), Language in Australia (pp. 270–284). New York: Cambridge University Press. Dunstan, J. (1978). Paths to excellence and the Soviet school. Oxford, England: National Foundation for Educational Research. Epstein, A. D., & Kheimets, N. G. (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, 191–210. Extra, G., & Verhoeven, L. (Eds). (1999). Bilingualism and migration. Berlin: de Gruyter. Fishman, J. A. (1991). Reversing language shift: Theoretical and empirical foundations of assistance to threatened languages. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. Fishman, J. A. (2001). From theory to practice (and vice versa): Review, reconsideration and reiteration. In J. A. Fishman (Eds.), Can threatened languages be saved? (pp. 451–483). Berlin: de Gruyter. Harres, R. (1989, September 27). The search for minority teachers. Los Angeles Times, pp. A1, A18.



123

Harris, J. R. (1995). Where is the child’s environment? A group socialization theory of development. Psychological Review, 103, 458–489. Hickey, T. (1999). Parents and early immersion: Reciprocity between home and immersion preschool. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 2, 94–113. Horenczyk, G., & Ben-Shalom, U. (2006). Acculturation in Israel. In D. Sam & J. Berry (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of acculturation psychology (pp. 294–310). New York: Cambridge University Press. Horowitz, T., & Leshem, E. (1998). The immigrants from the FSU in the Israeli cultural sphere. In M. Sicron & T. Leshem (Eds.), Profile of an immigration wave (pp. 291–333). Jerusalem: Magnes Press. King, K., & Fogle, L. (2006). Bilingual parenting as good parenting: Parents’ perspectives on family language policy for additive bilingualism. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9, 695–712. King, K., Fogle, L., & Logan-Terry, A. (2008). Family language policy. Language and Linguistics Compass, 2, 907–922. Kloss, H. (1966). German–American language maintenance efforts. In J. A. Fishman (Eds.), Language loyalty in the United States: The maintenance and perpetuation of non-English mother tongues by American ethnic and religious groups (pp. 206–252). The Hague, Netherlands: Mouton. Kopeliovich, S. (2006). Reversing language shift in the immigrant family: A case-study of a Russian-speaking community in Israel. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel. Kyratzis, A. (2004). Talk and interaction among children and the co-construction of peer groups and peer culture. Annual Review of Anthropology, 33, 625–649. Lambert, W. E., & Taylor D. M. (1996). Language in the lives of ethnic minorities: Cuban American families in Miami. Applied Linguistics, 17, 477–500. Leshem, E., & Lissak, M. (1999). Development and consolidation of the Russian community in Israel. In S. Weil (Eds.), Roots and routes: Ethnicity and migration in global perspective (pp. 135–171). Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press. Lissitsa, S. (2007). Index of immigrants’ integration in Israel. In M. Kenigshtein (Eds.), “Russian” face of Israel: The features of social portrait (pp. 141–164). Jerusalem/Moskva: Gesharim. Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (2005). Second language research: Methodology and design. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Ministry of Immigration. (2008). Immigration to Israel. Ontario, Canada: Author. Retrieved May 20, 2009, from http://www.moia.gov.il/Moia_he/Statistics/ImmigrationToIsraelPrevYears/ Moin, V., Schwartz, M., & Leikin, M. (2007). Bilingual Education: Pros and Cons. Unpublished questionnaire, University of Haifa, Israel. Niznik, M. (2007). Teaching Russian in Israel—Challenging the system. In M. Kenigshtein (Eds.), “Russian” face of Israel: The features of social portrait (pp. 403–417). Jerusalem/Moscow: Gesharim. Okita, T. (2002). Invisible work: Bilingualism, language choice and childrearing in intermarried families. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Saville-Troike, M. (2000). Causes and consequences of language maintenance/shift. In E. Olshtein & G. Hornczyk (Eds.), Language, identity, and immigration (pp. 159–171). Jerusalem: Magnes Press, Hebrew University. Schwartz, M. (2008). Exploring the relationship between family language policy and heritage language knowledge among second generation of Russian–Jewish immigrants in Israel. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 29, 400–418. Schwartz, M. (2010). Family language policy: Core issues of an emerging field. Applied Linguistics Review, 1(1), 171– 192. Sheffer, C. (2003). Parents’ lack of understanding of their children’s bilingual education program. Bilingual Research Journal, 27, 333–341. Solodkina, M. (2007). Forming of ethnic, national and civil identity of Russian-speaking immigrations in Israel. In M. Kenigshtein (Eds.), “Russian” face of Israel: The features of social portrait (pp. 51–62). Jerusalem/Moskva: Gesharim. Spolsky, B. (2004). Language policy. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Spolsky, B. (2007). Family language management: Some preliminaries. In A. Stavans & I. Kupferberg (Eds.), Studies in language and language education: Essays in honor of Elite Olshtain (pp. 429–449). Jerusalem: Magnes Press, Hebrew University. Spolsky, B., & Shohamy, E. (1999). The languages of Israel: Policy, ideology and practice. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.

124

SCHWARTZ ET AL.


Suarez-Orozco, M. (Ed.). (2007). Learning in the global era: International perspectives on globalization and education. Berkeley: University of California Press. Tannenbaum, M. (2005). Viewing family relations through a linguistic lens: Symbolic Aspects of language maintenance in immigrant families. Journal of Family Communication, 5, 229–252. Tannenbaum, M., & Howie, P. (2002). The association between language maintenance and family relations: Chinese immigrant children in Australia. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 23, 408–424. Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Williams, G. (1987). Bilingualism, class dialect and social reproduction. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 66, 85–98. Wong Fillmore, L. (1991). When learning a second language means losing the first. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 6, 323–346. Wong Fillmore, L. (2000). Loss of family languages: Should educators be concerned? Theory Into Practice, 39, 203–210.