Bilingual Education in Conflict-Ridden Areas

JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE, IDENTITY, AND EDUCATION, 4(1), 1–20 Copyright © 2005, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Complex Contexts and Ideologies: Bilingual Education in Conflict-Ridden Areas Zvi Bekerman Hebrew University, Jerusalem

Bilingual education, though acknowledged as having the potential to help overcome a wide variety of societal and cultural tensions, remains controversial and frequently misunderstood. The present study examines the extent to which sociohistorical and political contexts, in conflict-ridden areas, influence language attitudes and the implementation of bilingual educational initiatives geared toward encouraging sociocultural tolerance and the recognition of each of the participating groups while enabling students to become bilingual. More specifically I investigate and document how a particular bilingual Arabic–Hebrew program is interpreted and implemented in an integrated Palestinian–Jewish educational initiative in Israel. The current effort hopes to stimulate educators, parents, and policymakers into thinking about how to develop dual-language programs to address the particular contextual challenges which, when left unaccounted for, can prejudice their bilingual educational efforts. Key words: bilingual education, multicultural education, peace education, Palestinian–Jewish conflict, intergroup encounters

Research findings in bilingual education are mostly unambiguous regarding the positive effects of bilingualism on children’s awareness of language and cognitive functioning, as well as on the close relationship between bilingual students’ academic development in their first and second languages in situations where students are encouraged to develop both languages (Cummins, 2000). Still, and in spite of these encouraging results, bilingual education remains a controversial and frequently misunderstood field.

Requests for reprints should be sent to Zvi Bekerman, School of Education, Melton Center, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel 91905. E-mail: [email protected]

2

BEKERMAN

Hornberger (1991) distinguishes between three basic models of bilingual education: transitional, maintenance, and enrichment. The transitional model sees language as a problem which is overcome the moment the necessary skills for the use of the dominant language are learned. The maintenance model supports the right of minorities to sustain their original language while gaining literacy in the dominant language. The enrichment model understands language to be a resource of added value. Bilingual programs can be classified on a continuum between weak and strong bilingualism with additive bilingual approaches emphasizing symmetry between both languages in all aspects of instruction (García, 1997). Dual-language programs integrate students from two language backgrounds for content area instruction in both languages. For example, in Canada bilingual initiatives are intended for English-speaking students from the socially dominant group with the objective of promoting language proficiency in both French and English. These initiatives are referred to as second language immersion programs. In the United States these programs are called two-way bilingual or dual-language programs and their aim is for minority students to gain English proficiency and for majority students to learn a second language (Genesee & Gándara, 1999). These models seem in one way or another to agree with Skutnabb-Kangas and García’s (1995) assessment of the three main benefits of an effective bilingual educational project: (a) a high level of multilingualism; (b) equal opportunity for academic achievement; and (c) a strong, positive multilingual and multicultural identity including positive attitudes toward self and others. Recent evaluations show that when successfully implemented, dual-bilingual programs progressively achieve these goals (Crawford, 1997). In bilingual programs, intergroup power relations play an important role in either reproducing or overcoming conditions that subordinate language minority students and their communities (Paulson, 1994; Ricento & Hornberger, 1996; Valdés, 1997). Martin-Jones and Heller (1996) review a wide range of literature on education in multilingual settings and argue that the language practices of educational institutions are caught-up in the legitimization of power relations among ethno-linguistic groups. Recent studies conducted by Papademeter and Routoulas (2001) emphasize the ambivalence reflected in the views and opinions of minority immigrant groups toward bilingual and bicultural education. Bissoonauth and Offord (2001) suggest that the association of language with high status and prestige influences language use in multilingual societies. Obeng (2000) shows how attitudes encompassing a wide spectrum of values, beliefs, and emotions concerning language influence participants’ perspectives toward languages in general and toward educational bilingual initiatives in particular. As has been shown in recent ethnographic studies, there is no doubt that political and historical contexts affect people’s judgments and opinions about languages and their use (Obeng, 2000; Saville-Troike, 1997; Smith-Hefner, 1990). Yet, for

COMPLEX CONTEXTS AND IDEOLOGIES

3

the most part, studies in language attitudes have paid little attention to these (Bourhis & Sachdev, 1984; Bradac, 1990). Ricento (2000) points at the macro sociopolitical, epistemological, and strategic factors which have, over the last several decades, shaped language policy considerations. He argues that the language planning field mirrors in its development the path taken in the social sciences when moving through structuralism, critical theory, and postmodernism. Thus language planning has shifted from its traditional focus on problem solving to an emphasis on linguistic human rights. He suggests that what separates previous positivistic outlooks from present postmodern interests is the latter’s serious consideration of the roles of individuals and collectives in language use, attitudes, and policies. Ricento challenges researchers to integrate micro and macro levels of investigation so as to provide better explanations for language behavior than those currently available, suggesting that the ecology of language paradigm, though pointing in the right direction, might be in need of further conceptual development in order to better serve the needs of language education planning in the future. The present article is a partial attempt to meet this challenge. The study is concerned with the influence of social, historical, and political contexts in conflict-ridden areas on the implementation of bilingual educational initiatives geared toward encouraging tolerance and the recognition of each of the participating groups while also enabling the students to become bilingual. Specifically I look at the ways in which bilingualism is presented and interpreted at one of the bilingual schools recently established by the Center for Bilingual Education (CBE) in Israel. In line with Hornberger (2000) I explore the whats and hows (and hopefully the whys) of one specific bilingual Arabic–Hebrew educational effort through an analysis of macro (policy-interviews) and micro (practices) levels. The study is part of a 3-year ethnographic research project and points at the sociocultural and political contexts, which, if left unaccounted for, can prejudice bilingual educational efforts.

THE SOCIOPOLITICAL AND EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND OF ISRAEL’S BILINGUAL INITIATIVE As much as any other modern nation-state, the state of Israel is a product of an invented national identity (Hobsbawm, 1983) institutionalized through public education, a standardized legal system, and the development of a secular equivalent to the church (Ben-Amos & Bet-El, 1999; Gellner, 1997; Handelman, 1990). The Palestinian presence in the state of Israel and the awakening of Palestinian national consciousness have problematized the seemingly natural construct of the Israeli nation (“Palestinian Israelis” has, in recent years, become the preferred label for those who were traditionally known as Arab Israelis. The school studied lies within the internationally recognized borders of the state of Israel. Therefore this ar-

4

BEKERMAN

ticle is only concerned with these Palestinians and not with Palestinians in the recently created Palestinian Authority). The Jewish–Palestinian conflict remains the most explosive conflict in Israel, placing the Jewish majority (80% of the population) and the Palestinian (primarily Muslim) minority (20%) at perpetual odds. Both peoples have been plagued with tragedy and suffering, and political efforts to overcome their conflicts have been unsuccessful to date. Paraphrasing Edward Said, it could be said that we are dealing with “two asymmetrical communities with symmetrical fears” (1994, p. 9). Both sides believe they have a monopoly on the objective truth of the conflict and on the identification of the perpetuating villain. These perceptions undermine the prospects for conflict resolution (Bar-Tal, 1990, 1998). Abu-Nimer (1999) identifies three main causes of the larger Palestinian–Jewish conflict in Israel. The first relates to the fact that since 1948, the Palestinian people have lacked a political framework for self-determination. The second stems from the socioeconomic and political inequalities that result from the state of Israel’s self-definition as a Jewish state. The third points at the traditional and nonindustrial social and cultural character of Palestinian society in the context of Israel’s modern industrialized Western makeup. For the most part, Israel’s “ethnic democracy” (Smooha, 1996) has not welcomed the political, cultural, or social participation of groups outside of its legitimate, “imagined community” (Anderson, 1991) of Jews. Palestinian–Israelis, though officially offered full rights as citizens, have chronically suffered as a putatively hostile minority with little political representation and a debilitated social, economic, and educational infrastructure (Ghanem, 1998). The many ethnic and religious conflicts that beset Israel are reflected in the separate educational sectors of its educational system: nonreligious Jewish, Religious National Jewish, Orthodox Jewish, Druze, and Arab (Arab and not Palestinian is the reigning Jewish hegemony’s preferred denomination for the largest non-Jewish Israeli minority). All school sectors fall under the umbrella of the Israeli Ministry of Education (Sprinzak, Segev, Bar, & Levi-Mazloum, 2001). In spite of the structural constraints reflected in the educational system, the Palestinian population of Israel has made great progress in literacy. Presently over 90% of the Palestinian population is literate (Statistical Abstracts, 1995). Nevertheless, when the Palestinian school system is compared to the Jewish one, great discrepancies can be found in terms of physical facilities, teacher qualifications, retention rates, and levels of special services (Rouhana, 1997). Finally, it is worth noting some of the features of the Palestinian educational system in Israel that reflect the unique sociocultural background of this population. According to Abu-Nimer (1999), within the classroom, there exists an authoritarian model of student–teacher relationships and a formal teaching approach that is pedagogically very traditional. For teachers there is a sense of conflict regarding their loyalty both toward their employer, the Ministry of Education, and their loyalty toward their Palestinian community. The Ministry of Education imposes curricular con-


5

straints on the Palestinian educational system by, for example, not allowing schools to freely choose their own narratives concerning issues related to their cultural and national histories (e.g., there is no mention of the Naqbe [catastrophe]—commemorating the Palestinian expulsion in the Israeli war of independence). The security measures traditionally used by Israeli officialdom (e.g., authorization permits) to restrict teacher appointments, were canceled only in 1994 (Kretzmer, 1990; Rouhana, 1997). Consequently, an enormous gap has developed between the two systems, leaving the Palestinian educational system decades behind. The rather optimistic political outlook following the Oslo Agreements (1993–1996), which initiated peace negotiations between the Palestinian Liberation Organization and Israel, has radically changed in the wake of several pivotal events. First among these was the violent turn of events during the commemoration in October 2000 of Yom Ha’Adama (an annual event commemorating the six Palestinian—Israelis who, in 1976, were killed while protesting the confiscation of Palestinian lands by the Israeli government). The second were the violent outbreaks throughout the areas controlled by the Palestinian Authority as well as mass demonstrations by Palestinian–Israelis in the northern area of Israel, following Ariel Sharon’s visit to the El-Aksa Mosque area on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem in that same year. These events shattered the already fragile Palestinian–Jewish relations within Israel and shocked the two populations involved in the bilingual initiative. Despite these events and the persistent violence, the school in this study has entered its fourth year of activity and remains functioning, a fact that is a testimony to the ongoing efforts of its constitutive community to keep the dream alive under extremely difficult circumstances.

THE SOCIO-IDEOLOGICAL CONTEXT OF THE BILINGUAL INITIATIVE In light of the sociopolitical context in Israel, the idea of creating bilingual–bicultural Palestinian–Jewish coeducation is, in and of itself, a daring enterprise. The CBE, established in 1997, sought to initiate and foster egalitarian Palestinian–Jewish cooperation in education, primarily through the development of bilingual and multicultural coeducational institutions (Bekerman & Horenczyk, 2004). In 1998, the Center established two schools guided by these principles, one in Jerusalem and the other in the Upper Galilee. During the 2000–2001 school year the Upper Galilee school was comprised of three classes, from first to third grade. Forty-one Palestinian children (25 boys and 16 girls), from cities and villages in the vicinity of the school, and 35 Jewish children (17 boys and 18 girls) living in nearby settlements attended the school. The school is recognized as a nonreligious school supported by the Israeli Ministry of Education. It uses the standard curriculum of the state nonreligious school

6

BEKERMAN

system, the only difference being that both Hebrew and Arabic are used as languages of instruction. The school employs a strong additive bilingual approach in that it emphasizes symmetry between both languages in all aspects of instruction. Two homeroom teachers, a Palestinian and a Jew, jointly lead all classes. The CBE educational initiative has to confront what Spolsky and Shohamy (1999) have characterized as being a Type 1 monolingual society in which a sole language (Hebrew) is recognized as associated with the national identity while another language (i.e., Arabic), though officially recognized as a second language for education and public use (Koplewitz, 1992; Spolsky, 1994), has been marginalized. Hebrew is a second language for Israeli Palestinians. Education through the tenth grade is compulsory. All Palestinian children learn Hebrew in schools, starting in the third grade, for 3 to 5 hours per week from Palestinian Hebrew-speaking teachers. Graduates receive matriculation certificates for 10 years of Hebrew study in a curriculum that covers a variety of subjects such as grammar and traditional biblical and rabbinic texts, as well as modern Hebrew prose and poetry (Shehadeh, 1995). The Palestinian population’s ever growing proficiency in Hebrew is primarily instrumentally motivated (Amara, 1995) given the monolingual character of most aspects of public life in Israel. The central goal of the CBE, as it is expressed in its official public relations publication (Center for Bilingual Education in Israel, n.d.), is to develop a new educational scheme for Jewish–Palestinian schools that integrates children, parents, and the rest of the community jointly with governmental institutions (Ministry of Education local authorities) in building a cooperative framework structured on the basis of equality and mutual respect. The CBE document posits that bilingual study (Hebrew and Arabic) can be instrumental in deepening each group’s understanding of the other, and mentions that bilingual education is an empowering pedagogy which helps increase the self-esteem of minority students.

METHODS As a preface to my discussion of methods, I want to call attention to my Jewish background. This is done out of my sensibility toward the multiple theoretical perspectives which, in the last decades of the 20th century, have pointed at the relevance of the researcher’s own sociocultural and historical trajectories in the performance of any research activity (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000; Hannaford, 1996; Haraway, 1991). My sensibility is doubled in the case of this study, because it is conducted in an area engaged in one of the most intractable conflicts of modern times (Bar-Tal, 2000). Indeed ethnic, national, and religious identities operate in the lives of people by connecting them with some individuals and dividing them from others (Appiah & Gates, 1995). Still individuals negotiate their identities while constituting and being constituted by them (Harre & Gillett, 1995; Sampson, 1993). Although my Jewishness


7

might be considered a given, I want to believe that throughout my many years of life experiences and theoretical training in critical ethnographic perspectives, I have come at least to be able to sustain a critical view of myself and the circumstances of my research, which has never been an easy task. Suspicion (of self and others) has been common (Bekerman, 2003a). Thus, in addition to my own reflective and critical position, I have made sure throughout the research process to be assisted by individuals who identified fully with Palestinians, those Palestinians who might otherwise have distrusted me because of my background. This analysis is based on data gathered using a variety of methods, from diverse methodological perspectives, during the first 2 years of the research. We conducted over 120 interviews, of which 95 were with parents—most of them in individual sessions lasting approximately 1 hour each, and the rest in small group meetings that lasted approximately 90 minutes each. All staff members were interviewed three or four times during the 2-year period. We also talked with the students, either in brief semistructured individual interviews or in more informal circumstances, mostly during recess. The interviews were conducted according to qualitative ethnographic principles (Seidman, 1991; Spradley, 1979) whereby the interviewer remained focused on a number of topics that seemed relevant to the study but allowed participants to tell their stories without binding the interview to a fixed agenda of questions. We recorded all 28 meetings of the school’s steering committee during the 2 years of research. During 60 days of school activities, we conducted both systematic as well as informal observations during class and recess, and we attended all national and religious ceremonial events. Many of these observations were videotaped and later transcribed for analysis. Structured questionnaires, dealing primarily with motivations and expectations, were administered to parents: two during the first year and one during the second year of the study. First-language assessments were conducted in the school using a quasi-experimental research design, in which the language proficiency of the students in the bilingual school was compared to that of students attending regular monolingual schools (Palestinian or Jewish). Finally, second-language comprehension was also measured using a test developed specifically for our study. The test consisted of questions read aloud (in Arabic to the Jewish students and in Hebrew to the Palestinian students) referring to drawings about familiar artifacts; children were asked to circle some of the drawings or to connect pairs of them. All interviews and meetings were audiotaped and fully transcribed. Qualitative data were carefully analyzed, looking for patterns and thematic issues of relevance, which were then coded so as to allow for further analysis. The coding instrument used was thus developed after the conclusion of both the observations and the interviews and following a first reading of the protocols (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Quantitative data obtained from the structured questionnaires and from the first- and second-language assessments were submitted to statistical analyses, mainly for comparisons between Jewish and Palestinian populations. Due to space

8

BEKERMAN

limitations, I focus in this article on an analysis of bilingual perspectives, attitudes, and strategies, based primarily on qualitative data on educational events and contextual sociocultural processes involved in the functioning of the school. Quantitative aspects of the study can be viewed in Bekerman and Horenczyk (2000, 2001).

GENERAL ASPECTS OF THE BILINGUAL PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION During the first year of our study and the second year of the school’s operation, teachers experimented with ways to prevent language segregation or compartmentalization into specific disciplines or time slots. All aspects of the curriculum were taught in both languages, with two teachers present at all times, taking the lead in different subjects but making sure both Arabic- and Hebrew-speaking children understood the content. Teachers continuously tried to assure equality in the use of Arabic and Hebrew in class. The teachers referred to these practices, somewhat jokingly, as the “rule of the ruler.” The double meaning of the term “ruler”—as both an empowered individual/group and a measuring device—implied the need to guarantee symmetry or equality when designing and implementing all school activities. Our observations showed that upon entering any classroom, one entered a bilingual world. In viewing all the signs, letters, and numbers hanging on the walls, the books in the classrooms and the library, and the trilingual computer keyboards (Arabic, Hebrew, and English), one could not help but notice the effort invested in language equality. All teachers made great efforts to apply the “rule” during class periods. In each classroom, the joint Palestinian–Jewish team planned the activities, allocating equal amounts of time for instruction in each language irrespective of the subject. Nonetheless, in spite of these efforts, symmetry has not been easy to achieve. Although the Palestinian teachers are fluent in Hebrew, their Jewish counterparts have only a very limited, if any, knowledge of Arabic. Palestinian teachers, like all Palestinian citizens in Israel, are generally fully bilingual having grown up in a context that uses Hebrew as the central language of communication. In addition, all the Palestinian teachers in our school had been trained in one of the regular Israeli Hebrew-speaking teachers’ colleges. Jewish teachers were not expected to know Arabic. During classes, teachers talked to both groups. The Palestinian teachers, when engaging Jewish students, sought to sustain the conversation in Arabic although they switched into Hebrew when they felt that they were not understood. The Jewish teachers communicated primarily in Hebrew, and more so with the Jewish children. When engaging Palestinian children, they generally reverted to Hebrew as the language of communication. The students preferred to interact with the teacher from their own national background. The Palestinian children seemed to turn to the Jewish teacher more than the Jewish children turned to the Palestinian teacher.


9

Although the teachers encouraged both groups to turn to their peers in the other group when help with either language was necessary, relatively little interaction occurred between the children of different national backgrounds. Among themselves, children interacted through their mother tongues. When the children were in a mixed group, generally Hebrew was the operative language. Even when the majority of the children were Palestinian, Hebrew was, for the most part, preferred. Jewish children in general spoke less Arabic than the Palestinian children spoke Hebrew. These facts were not surprising, in light of the fact that, whatever the conditions, Palestinians ultimately represent only 20% of the Israeli population and are mostly marginalized in the larger Israeli reality. By the end of the first year of our study (and the second year of the program), the children’s language proficiencies revealed that bilingual instruction had been more successful among the Palestinian students. Both our observations and our language assessment tests articulated this fact and made obvious that, but for a few well-staged ceremonial events (for descriptions of these see Bekerman, 2002a, 2003b), an ideology based on symmetry would not in itself be sufficient to achieve the cherished dual-bilingual goals as fully as desired. The principle of symmetry, the “rule of the ruler,” was not axiomatic in practice and, toward the beginning of our second year of research, the teachers gradually decided to override symmetry with regard to the study of the Arabic and Hebrew languages. During the third year of the program, the school decided to compensate for asymmetrical language achievements by tilting the balance in favor of Arabic. The teachers organized their work to foster this shift, and in the classroom they made a substantial effort to have students work and speak primarily in Arabic. In addition, Palestinian teachers conducted the majority of the extracurricular activities in Arabic. When one of the Jewish teachers left for maternity leave, a Palestinian teacher was hired as coteacher for the class. Despite all these steps, the educational staff understood that these initiatives might not succeed. They were conscious that much of what went on in the educational background remained tilted toward the Hebrew language. Teachers’ interactions were conducted in Hebrew, and Hebrew was the reigning language of teachers’ meetings, training sessions, parents’ meetings, and steering committee meetings. Even in the assumed strongholds of Arabic language functionality, such as music classes conducted by a Palestinian musician very much attuned to and in agreement with the bilingual ideology that guided school activity, things did not seem to work well. We had the opportunity to observe the music teacher who was careful to speak only in Arabic even when it was clear to him that the Jewish students could not follow what he was saying. When these students became impatient and started disturbing the class activity, the teacher turned to them and condemned their behavior in Hebrew, thereby overruling the old rule as well as the new Arabic-tilted policy. A point of interest worth mentioning is that in the second and last year of our research (with the opening of third grade) the school introduced English lessons into

10

BEKERMAN

their curriculum. These were welcomed by both Palestinian and Jewish children as well as by their parents. With the introduction of English into the school curriculum, Jewish parents and their children increasingly questioned the absolute need to study Arabic, or alternatively, the amount of time invested in such instruction. Palestinian parents also expressed positive feelings toward increasing the time allotted to the study of the English language. In the larger context, where Hebrew is the local/national dominant language and English potentially offers a free pass into global participation, Arabic risks being completely undermined. Such a context might be too powerful, even for the most well-intentioned bilingual initiatives.

SHAREHOLDERS’ PERSPECTIVES ON LANGUAGE AND THE BILINGUAL INITIATIVE Parents All parents involved in the bilingual initiative considered themselves proud and legitimate members of one of the two distinct national groups, Jews and Palestinians. Given historical and current tensions between the two groups, all members emphasized in our interviews their national/religious identity and underlined the importance of sustaining this identity for their children. Participation in the bilingual initiative should not be confused with a willingness to undergo any identity shifts. “We want our children to be proud Palestinians,” or “We do not send our children to school to have their identities confused” (a Jewish parent), are the type of statements regularly heard in the interviews we conducted. When asked why they send their children to the bilingual school, parents offered two major reasons: ideological (i.e., a willingness to participate in efforts aimed at peace and reconciliation), and educational (i.e., expectations for good educational practices). Both groups seemed equally concerned with both aspects of the project, but each mentioned them in a different order. For reasons that will become apparent in the following, both elements needed to be present for parents to be able to send their children to this school. The ordering of “ideology first” or of “educational excellence first” might be attributed to the different sociopolitical positions each group is afforded in the wider political context. The Jewish population can choose from countless educational options while the Palestinians, as mentioned, have suffered general resource deprivation including diminished opportunities for good educational facilities. The Palestinian parents would therefore inevitably be interested in an initiative that offered opportunities for educational excellence. That said, the parents also reported that if the bilingual school did not offer “recognition and respect for our national history and cultural traditions in ways unknown in regular Arab Israeli schools” they would not have sent their children to the institution. (The term “Arab” and not “Palestinian” is retained when it is part of a direct quotation). The Jewish popula-


11

tion in this northern part of Israel, where Palestinians represent the majority of the population, seemed well aware of the need to better Palestinian–Jewish relations and to create schools that support such efforts. Still, in their interviews, these parents recognized the benefits of “smaller numbers of children in class, the presence of two teachers, and the fact that the Palestinian population sending their children to the bilingual school come from a socioeconomic background similar to ours.” In at least one interview, a Jewish parent noted that he would not have sent his children to the school if the initiative had involved children coming from a rather poor neighborhood populated primarily by North African Jews (a Jewish Israeli subgroup marginalized by Jewish Ashkenazi hegemony). When questioned in the interviews, Palestinian parents reported a higher level of opposition from relatives or friends to their decision to send their children to a Jewish–Palestinian school than did Jewish parents. For the most part, the Palestinian parents identified two grounds for this opposition. The first, on nationalistic grounds, implied that joining the school was equivalent to joining with the enemy. However, in these parents’ evaluation, such sentiments were voiced by apparent extremists. The second basis for opposition was based on a perceived potential threat of cultural assimilation. The interviewees usually assuaged their concerns by emphasizing that the school encourages the parents to monitor school activities carefully and to get involved if they felt anything was being misinterpreted. In addition, the parents emphasized that culture is determined and maintained within the context of the family. One parent expressed this in the following way: They tell [my husband] they do not believe his stories about the school … they say our son will lose his identity … and that he will surely become a Jew … I tell them I have no problem with what they say … that I’m sure nothing will be done … without my consent and that I sit on the Parents’ Committee … they don’t understand that at the school we learn about the Naqbe and the Day of the Land and many other things which are not taught in regular Arab schools. On the whole, Jewish parents less frequently mentioned negative responses on the part of family or friends. When relevant, interviewees recounted their family’s concerns about assimilation and intermarriage: “At this early age [first grade] this is not a problem, but if the school develops we need to think about friendships and intermarriage.” They were also concerned with whether learning a second language (Arabic) would negatively influence their children’s proficiency in their mother tongue (Hebrew). “I was afraid that learning two languages would slow their development though I admit [that my concern] was not necessary.” Palestinian parents also feared a possible negative influence on their children’s development.

12

BEKERMAN

Of course we have fears they will teach him Hebrew and Arabic … I fear he will be confused and might not know Arabic well enough if, by the end of first grade, he does not know either Hebrew or Arabic, no problem. But, if the same happens by the end of high school, then this is a catastrophe. Nevertheless, for the most part Palestinian parents considered Hebrew proficiency essential to the future development of their children and they joined the initiative with excitement. “We expect our daughter to learn Hebrew … in any university in which she will learn, Hebrew is the reigning language … we do not want her to suffer as we did in the university.” Indeed, as we mentioned earlier, Hebrew is taught in the regular Palestinian Israeli school system, and all Israeli Palestinians can communicate in this language. However, the proficiency attained in that school system is not as high as parents in the bilingual program would desire. “In our [Palestinian] schools, [children] start learning Hebrew in third grade … I think this is not enough … our youth, when finishing high school, do not have the skills to sustain an argument in Hebrew.” “When I finished school and I went to look for a job I had to start learning Hebrew from scratch because what I was taught in school was useless.” The standard pronunciation of Hebrew is another serious matter. Jewish Israelis commonly identify Palestinians by their different use of Hebrew phonetics. For example, when speaking Hebrew, Palestinians often exchange the sound of emphatic letters such as p with the sound of b. The parent of one second-grader related with pride how his two older sons, who attend regular Palestinian schools, tease his younger son—who attends the bilingual program—because of his Hebrew pronunciation. “He does not exchange a p for a b,” the father said jokingly and proudly. Palestinian parents, like this father, see proper Hebrew as a key to their children’s social acceptance and upward mobility. But Hebrew language proficiency is not the only motivator for sending their children to the bilingual school, and Palestinian parents hoped to gain additional benefits from the bilingual program. They wanted their children to receive a good education, which implies education in line with modern educational practices (as opposed to traditional ones). The Palestinian parents also wanted their children to have high self-esteem or, as they articulated this issue repeatedly in the interviews, “we want our children to feel secure, not to fear talking in the presence of adults; to have a self-image equal to that of Jewish children.” Jewish parents expected their children to learn Arabic but they were not as enthusiastic as their Palestinian counterparts were in regard to Hebrew. “We did want our children to learn Arabic, but given the context it is difficult and it will be enough [for them and us] to get to know Arabic culture and tradition.” Seldom were Jewish parents concerned with their children’s development in Hebrew; generally they were more concerned with their children’s progress in Arabic. “I expected my child to learn Arabic [as Palestinian children learn Hebrew]. … It is not clear if she will ever reach that level.” Although the Jewish parents seemed to ex-


13

press great satisfaction with their children’s progress during the first year, ultimately no clear sense of the overall success in bilingualism existed. Jewish parents were well aware that the Israeli social context offers little guarantee of the acquisition of Arabic by their children. As parents, all they could offer their children was support and good will. While for Palestinian parents the school was just one additional, albeit important, enforcing element in an already overpopulated Hebrew environment, the Jewish parents generally expected the bilingual school to be their children’s only source for Arabic language education.

Officials, Teachers, and Non Governmental Organizations (NGO) Representatives At first glance, teachers stood strongly behind the bilingual policy of the school. They mentioned with pride their sense of being part of the making of a new history, one conducive to a new Israeli reality of coexistence, which included true recognition and appreciation of the cultural and national traditions represented at school. Both Palestinian and Jewish teachers mentioned in our first interviews the great efforts they proudly invested in creating “from scratch” a curriculum that allowed for a full expression of equality between the groups, one mostly expressed in their care to sustain a “50/50%” bilingual practice. Later interviews, though still allowing for the expression of support, revealed a more complex picture. Palestinian teachers felt bilingualism potentially held the key to better understanding. My thinking is that two peoples live in this area Jewish settlements and Arab villages but if you look deeply you find that Arabs know nothing about Jews and Jews know nothing about Arabs … there is a potential in this school to meet each other through the language … I think language is the door to thought and culture … I, as an Arab, need to know Hebrew … you cannot live in the Jewish state without knowing Hebrew … but the Jewish child needs to know Arabic as well … knowing Arabic, he will change his views and stereotypes and will understand the other side. That said, the teachers were well aware of how constraining the Israeli context is on their bilingual efforts. One teacher said, What needs to exist is equality between the languages … fifty-fifty is equality … but there is no equality the dominant language is Hebrew … I see that the Arab kids know Hebrew and that the Jewish kids know less Arabic … when [the Jewish kids] go home they forget and their parents show no interest … if Arabic is important we need to invest much more effort.

14

BEKERMAN

The teachers also understood that the Palestinian population, being the minority, paradoxically understands that efforts invested toward symmetry are potentially damaging to the needs of their children. “The Arab group wants very much for their children to improve their Hebrew … the efforts we invest in the school to encourage the use of Arabic are, in one way or another, interpreted as nonbeneficial for the Arab population and as beneficial for the Jews.” In one case a Palestinian teacher with strong political views expressed her feeling that the Palestinian parents at school were not sufficiently “… jealous of their Palestinian identity.” Jewish teachers were well aware of the fact that, in spite of ideological rhetoric, learning Arabic was not a central issue for participating Jewish families. They realized that the Israeli monolingual context was not helpful in supporting Jewish children to learn Arabic and they knew well that “when children return home, the TV is in Hebrew and their parents cannot help.” In light of present circumstances they were realistic about the slight chances of having their students become bilingual. The Palestinian and Jewish codirectors of the NGO, in the multiple opportunities we had formally and informally to interview them, expressed similar views though in stronger terms. While the Jewish codirector expressed his strong support for the successful implementation of a dual-bilingual program, he was well aware that teachers and parents on both sides would keep supporting the school to the extent that it was successful in offering the Palestinian population a high bilingual proficiency and the Jewish cohort some basic Arabic knowledge enhanced by a more profound understanding of Muslim culture. The Palestinian codirector, politically a strong believer that true equality can only be achieved by the majority’s recognition of the Palestinian minority (which implies increased Jewish proficiency in Arabic) continuously emphasized his perception that bilingualism should work “in both directions.” Still, although he was well aware of the problems the educational initiative encountered on the way, he was not willing to give up his positive rhetoric regarding two-way bilingual immersion. “Giving up on it,” he said, “means justifying the abandonment of present efforts without which the initiative and its agenda cannot work.” Students The children also seemed aware of the situation. One Palestinian child succinctly defined the situation in a way that agreed with what most other children had said. We asked her if she speaks better Arabic than Hebrew and she replied with the following: “I speak Arabic better than Hebrew and the Jewish kids speak Hebrew better than me. But my Hebrew is much better than their Arabic.” Parents and students seem to be relatively happy with the possible outcome of the bilingual initiative, while the teachers—mostly the Palestinian ones—and the NGO behind the initiative are less so.


15

DISCUSSION Languages are exuberant tools of meaning making; they produce and express identity, create connectedness in political and social communities, and are consequential in the marketplace. As is the case in many bilingual programs, the bilingual school studied suffers from somewhat contradictory practices, perspectives, and expectations in relation to its goals. Our observations showed that in spite of serious efforts invested by the entire school staff, the attempt to sustain full symmetry in the use of both the Arabic and Hebrew languages failed. The rule of the ruler, though central when representing the school as one that offers recognition to two national/cultural traditions, could not alone overcome the realities of a mostly monolingual Israeli society. Even when, in the second year of our research, the language policy shifted toward an “affirmative action” approach in support of Arabic, the introduction of English, and existing Israeli policies, rendered the bilingual efforts mostly ineffective with regards to the Jewish population at school (at least for now). We have heard teachers express ambivalence toward the bilingual policy. Although strongly supporting it they were well aware of the detrimental effect of the larger Israeli Hebrew context. We have seen the different motivations that support the participating groups. Jewish parents sometimes joined in order to materialize their ideological aspirations, albeit under certain constraining conditions. For example, they support bilingualism as long as it does not harm educational excellence and seemed satisfied with an educational initiative that allowed them to substantiate their liberal positions and to offer their children cultural understanding and sensitivity toward the “other.” Palestinian parents sending their children to the school were after the best education they could find in the present Israeli sociopolitical context. As became apparent in the interviews, Israel’s present sociopolitical conditions make it almost impossible for parents to dream about a soon-to-arrive top-down multicultural, multilingual policy. It is also not totally clear whether they would adopt it gladly if imposed, especially when considering that, as members of an upper middle-class socioeconomical sector of society, they perceived education to be a means of mobility in a world going global. They thus preferred an English lingua franca and high Hebrew literacy to achieve their present dreams for their children’s future. The current Israeli sociopolitical context seems to discourage the teaching and learning of Arabic. Even when the monetary resources are available to create a nearly perfect bilingual environment with declared, across the board, ideological support; bilingualism seems unable to take root. This ethnographic study has exposed multiple macro and micro contextual levels embedded in bilingual education. It has considered Israel’s national sphere, the Jewish and Palestinian communities with some in-group divergence, and specific educational practices. At the macro national level, we find a still segregationist policy that offers no “real” support for multilingual policies. At a medium commu-

16

BEKERMAN

nity level, we have seen competing in-group perspectives and seen cross-group partial coalitions. At the level of educational practices, we have seen an outstanding effort to achieve dual-bilingual opportunities for all through a strong emphasis, first on symmetry between the languages used and later on the explicit preference of Arabic over Hebrew so as to attain the program’s objectives. Though the importance of understanding contextual limitations in bilingual education cannot be overstated and it is essential that these perspectives inform educational initiatives, governmental or other institutional acknowledgment of these perspectives is not necessarily a guarantee of success. At present, bilingual projects seem primarily to serve political agendas, within the realm of the nation-state, in a world where national boundaries no longer represent clear-cut national identities and are affected, at least in the West, by large waves of voluntary and involuntary immigration. At times, these agendas strive sincerely to promote the interests of minority groups and confront mainstream hegemonies. At other times, such agendas are just paying lip service to political correctness. For whatever the reasons, these initiatives seem, in the best of cases, not to be attaining their goals and, in the worst cases, oblivious of the reasons for their failure. We could easily find fault with the teachers and parents involved in our program. We could blame them for consciously or unconsciously conveying negative messages about the minority language in spite of their overt efforts to create a school environment and a curriculum that represent a balanced bilingual effort. But this would be clutching at straws. If placed anywhere, the “blame” should more accurately be placed on an adaptive, wider, sociopolitical system in which Arabic carries little symbolic power. In Bourdieu’s (1991) terms, it can be said in general that in Israel, speakers of Hebrew have more cultural capital in the linguistic market place than those who speak Arabic. It is not clear that the parents participating in the initiative are interested in changing the existing power relations in Israel. The Jewish parents, as the majority, while clearly liberally inclined and hopeful in creating more humane and respectful environments for the Palestinian–Israelis, do not necessarily see the need for radical change. The Palestinian parents, who belong to an aspiring middle class, understand the advantages of linguistically empowering their children’s entrance into the reigning bureaucracy and the need to adapt to the rules of the game, specifically in a school context that, at least declaratively, stands behind an emancipating option. We cannot assume that solutions to these issues can be found in the narrow limits of the school and their surrounding communities. What undoubtedly needs to be addressed are the deeply entrenched paradigmatic perspectives that support the nation-state ideology and its traditional monoculturalism and monolingualism. The nation-state’s monologic stance is product of an epistemology that posits the individual as imprisoned in reified understandings of identity and culture (Bauman, 1999; Bekerman, 2000, 2002b; Billig, 1995; Gellner, 1983). If a dialogue about the epistemological bases which substantiate this attitude is not initiated, I doubt


17

whether bilingual educational initiatives, even the best intentioned of them, will achieve the dream of an equality that allows for and acknowledges sociocultural differences as affirmed in multicultural, bilingual discourse. But even if this dialogue does take place we should be careful not to be blinded by our own theoretical/ideological constructs. Language is not necessarily the only way through which to organize the world, or the only path to a socially just and multicultural society. Moreover, educational institutions need not be the first (nor the only as they usually are) places in which to achieve linguistic rights and even when chosen for that purpose, they should be viewed in the wider national/political and communal/cultural contexts in which they come to function, paying special attention not to fall back into the reification of unitary groups (ethnic/national/religious or other). We will do well to remember that in the end it is concrete political/structural changes that help bring an end to human suffering. This seems to apply not only to top-down national initiatives but also to those, like the one discussed here, that work in the opposite direction. All in all, we should remember that the poststructuralist/postmodern revolution benefited research by calling upon us all to overcome “universals” and sweeping generalizations. Working in this direction might help pave the way to new, more generous imaginings in sociopolitical organization. Some are already experimenting with such ideas. Europe, for one, is trying to reconsider its reorganization toward what might even become unexpected meta-national structures. Some have suggested considering such innovations in the Middle East as well. More important in our case, working in this direction might free the imagination for more productive multicultural, multilingual educational work. Dealing in the particular may be complex but seems to be the only, albeit difficult, way to consider bilingual policy. Paying careful attention to a variety of particular settings and populations, we will be encouraged to develop flexible categories, policies, and strategies. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This study is part of a larger, 3-year research project, supported by the Ford Foundation Grant 990-1558 and a Spencer Foundation Grant. The research was carried out in close collaboration with research assistant Nader Shhadi and for the first 2 years jointly directed with my colleague Gabriel Horenczyk. I thank Julia Schlam and Vivienne Burstein for their critical insights and assistance when editing the manuscript. I am also deeply appreciative of the efforts invested by the blind reviewers and their very insightful comments and suggestions for improving the work. REFERENCES Abu-Nimer, M. (1999). Dialogue, conflict, resolution, and change: Arab-Jewish encounters in Israel. Albany: State University of New York Press.

18

BEKERMAN

Amara, M. H. (1995). Hebrew and English lexical reflections of socio-political changes in Palestinian Arabic. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 16, 165–172. Anderson, B. (1991). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origins and spread of nationalism. London: Verso. Appiah, K. A., & Gates, H. L. (1995). Identities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Bar-Tal, D. (1990). Group beliefs: A conception for analyzing group structure. New York: Springer-Verlag. Bar-Tal, D. (1998). Societal beliefs in times of intractable conflict: The Israeli case. International Journal of Conflict Management, 9, 22–50. Bar-Tal, D. (2000). From intractable conflict through conflict resolution to reconciliation: Psychological analysis. Political Psychology, 21, 351–365. Bauman, Z. (1999). Culture as praxis. London: Sage. Bekerman, Z. (2000). Dialogic directions: Conflicts in Israeli/Palestinian education for peace. Intercultural Education, 11, 41–51. Bekerman, Z. (2002a). Can education contribute to coexistence and reconciliation? Religious and national ceremonies in bilingual Palestinian–Jewish schools in Israel. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 8, 259–276. Bekerman, Z. (2002b). The discourse of nation and culture: Its impact on Palestinian–Jewish encounters in Israel. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 26, 409–427. Bekerman, Z. (2003a). Never free of suspicion. Cultural Studies: New Methodologies, 3, 136–147. Bekerman, Z. (2003b). Reshaping conflict through school ceremonial events in Israeli Palestinian–Jewish co-education. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 34, 205–224. Bekerman, Z., & Horenczyk, G. (2000). Bilingual education in Israel: Interim report submitted to the Ford Foundation. Jerusalem: School of Education, Hebrew University. Retrieved May 25, 2003 from http://meltonlib.huji.ac.il/papers.html Bekerman, Z., & Horenczyk, G. (2001). Bilingual education in Israel: Final report submitted to the Ford Foundation. Jerusalem: School of Education, Hebrew University. Retrieved May 25, 2003 from http://meltonlib.huji.ac.il/papers.html Bekerman, Z., & Horenczyk, G. (2004). Arab-Jewish bilingual co-education in Israel: A long-term approach to inter-group conflict resolution. Journal of Social Issues, 60, 389–404. Ben-Amos, A., & Bet-El, I. (1999). Holocaust day and Memorial day in Israeli schools: Ceremonies, education and history. Israel Studies, 4, 258–284. Billig, M. (1995). Banal nationalism. London: Sage. Bissoonauth, A., & Offord, M. (2001). Language use in Mauritian adolescents. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 25, 381–400. Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bourhis, R. Y., & Sachdev, I. (1984). Vitality perception and language attitudes. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 3, 97–126. Bradac, J. (1990). Language attitude and impression formation. In H. Giles & W. P. Robinson (Eds.), Handbook of language and social psychology (pp. 387–412). New York: Wiley. Center for Bilingual Education in Israel. (CBE). (n.d.). Pamphlet. Crawford, J. (1997). Best evidence: Research foundations of the Bilingual Education Act. Unpublished manuscript, Washington, DC. Cummins, J. (2000). Beyond adversarial discourse: Searching for common ground in the education of bilingual students. In C. J. Ovando & P. McLaren (Eds.), Multiculturalism and bilingual education (pp. 148–165). Boston: McGraw Hill. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.). London: Sage. García, O. (1997). Bilingual education. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), The handbook of sociolinguistics (pp. 405–420). Oxford, England: Blackwell.


19

Gellner, E. (1983). Nations and nationality. Oxford, England: Basic Blackwell. Gellner, E. (1997). Nationalism. New York: New York University Press. Genesee, F., & Gándara, P. (1999). Bilingual education programs: A cross national perspective. Journal of Social Issues, 55, 665–685. Ghanem, A. (1998). State and minority in Israel: The case of ethnic state and the predicament of its minority. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 21, 428–448. Handelman, D. (1990). Models and mirrors: Towards an anthropology of public events. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Hannaford, I. (1996). Race: The history of an idea in the West. Baltimore & Washington, DC: The Woodrow Wilson Center Press & The Johns Hopkins University Press. Haraway, D. J. (1991). Simians, cyborgs, and women: The revision of nature. New York: Routledge. Harre, R., & Gillett, G. (1995). The discursive mind. London: Sage. Hobsbawm, E. J. (1983). The invention of tradition. In E. J. Hobsbawm & T. Ranger (Eds.), The invention of tradition (pp. 1–14). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Hornberger, N. (1991). Extending enrichment bilingual education: Revisiting typologies and redirecting policy. In O. García (Ed.), Bilingual education: Focusschrift in honor of Joshua A. Fishman (Vol. 1, pp. 215–234). Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Hornberger, N. H. (2000). Bilingual education policy and practice in the Andes: Ideological paradox and intercultural possibility. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 31, 172–201. Koplewitz, I. (1992). Arabic in Israel: The sociolinguistic situation of Israel’s linguistic minority. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 98, 29–66. Kretzmer, D. (1990). The legal status of the Arabs in Israel. Boulder, CO: Westview. Martin-Jones, M., & Heller, M. (1996). Introduction to the special issues on education in multilingual settings. Linguistics and Education, 8, 3–16. Obeng, S. G. (2000). Speaking the unspeakable: Discursive strategies to express language attitudes in Legon (Ghana) graffiti. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 33, 291–319. Papademeter, L., & Routoulas, S. (2001). Social, political, educational, linguistic and cultural (dis-) incentives for languages education in Australia. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 22, 134–151. Paulson, S. E. (1994). Relations of parenting style and parental involvement with ninth-grade students’ achievement. Journal of Early Adolescence, 14, 250–267. Ricento, T. (2000). Historical and theoretical perspectives in language policy and planning. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 4, 196–213. Ricento, T., & Hornberger, N. (1996). Unpeeling the onion: Language planning and policy and the ELT professional. TESOL Quarterly, 30, 401–428. Rouhana, N. N. (1997). Palestinian citizens in an ethnic Jewish state. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Said, E. (1994). The politics of dispossession. New York: Vintage. Sampson, E. E. (1993). Celebrating the other: A dialogic account of human nature. Hertfordshire, England: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Saville-Troike, M. (1997). The ethnography of communication. Oxford, England: Blackwell. Seidman, I. E. (1991). Interviewing as qualitative research. New York: Teachers College Press. Shehadeh, H. (1995). The Hebrew of the Arabs in Israel (in the light of two matriculation examinations, 1970, 1972). In M. Sabour & K. S. Vikor (Eds.), Proceedings of the Third Nordic Conference on Middle Eastern Studies: Ethnic encounter and cultural change (pp. 49–71). Joensuu, Finland: Nordic Conference on Middle Eastern Studies. Skutnabb-Kangas, T., & García, O. (Eds.). (1995). Multilingualism for all? General principles. Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets and Zeitlinger. Smith-Hefner, N. J. (1990). Language and identity in the education of Boston-area Khmer. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 21, 250–268.

20

BEKERMAN

Smooha, S. (1996). Ethno-democracy: Israel as an archetype. In P. Ginosar & A. Bareli (Eds.), Zionism: A contemporary polemic (pp. 277–311). Jerusalem: Ben Gurion University (Hebrew). Spolsky, B. (1994). The situation of Arabic in Israel. In Y. Suleiman (Ed.), Arabic sociolinguistics: Issues and perspectives (pp. 227–236). Richmond, VA: Curzon Press. Spolsky, B., & Shohamy, E. (1999). Language in Israel society and education. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 137, 93–114. Spradley, J. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Sprinzak, D., Segev, Y., Bar, E., & Levi-Mazloum, D. (2001). Facts and figures about education in Israel. Jerusalem: State of Israel, Ministry of Education, Economics, and Budgeting Administration. Statistical Abstract of Israel. (1995). Israel Central Bureau of Statistics, Jerusalem. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Valdés, G. (1997). Dual-language immersion programs: A cautionary note concerning the education of language minority students. Harvard Educational Review, 67, 391–429.