PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by: [University of Haifa]On: 22 June 2011Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 931225827]Publisher RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Language, Culture and CurriculumPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t794297818

Attitudes towards bilingual Arab-Hebrew education in Israel: acomparative study of Jewish and Arab adultsFaisal Azaizaa; Rachel Hertz-Lazarowitzb; Meyrav Shohamc; Muhammad Amarad; Aura Mor-Sommerfelde; Nohad 'Alie

a School of Social Work, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel b Faculty of Education, University of Haifa,Haifa, Israel c The Jewish-Arab Center, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel d Beit Berl Academic College,Kfar Saba, Israel e Department of Sociology and Anthropology, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel

Online publication date: 21 June 2011

To cite this Article Azaiza, Faisal , Hertz-Lazarowitz, Rachel , Shoham, Meyrav , Amara, Muhammad , Mor-Sommerfeld,Aura and 'Ali, Nohad(2011) 'Attitudes towards bilingual Arab-Hebrew education in Israel: a comparative study of Jewishand Arab adults', Language, Culture and Curriculum, 24: 2, 179 — 193To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/07908318.2011.584626URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2011.584626

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 orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould 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 directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Attitudes towards bilingual Arab–Hebrew education in Israel: acomparative study of Jewish and Arab adults

Faisal Azaizaa∗, Rachel Hertz-Lazarowitzb, Meyrav Shohamc, Muhammad Amarad,Aura Mor-Sommerfelde and Nohad ‘Alie

aSchool of Social Work, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel; bFaculty of Education, University ofHaifa, Haifa, Israel; cThe Jewish–Arab Center, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel; dBeit BerlAcademic College, Kfar Saba, Israel; eDepartment of Sociology and Anthropology, University ofHaifa, Haifa, Israel

(Received 12 August 2010; final version received 20 April 2011)

This study examines attitudes towards bilingual Jewish–Arab education among Jewishand Arab adults in Israel. The sample consisted of 1014 respondents who participated ina national phone survey in late 2006. Results indicate that Arabs are significantly moresupportive of bilingual education in Israel than Jews. Positive attitudes regarding theimportance and the status of Arabic, integration between Jews and Arabs and civilsociety were all predictive of positive attitudes towards bilingual education amongArab participants. The same variables, along with lower religiosity, predicted attitudestowards bilingual education among Jewish participants. Attitudes towards integrationwere the strongest predictors of attitudes towards bilingual education in both groups.Implications and limitations, as well as possible avenues for future research, arediscussed.

Keywords: language attitudes; bilingual education; Jews; Arabs; Israel

This article explores how Jews and Arabs in Israel perceive issues related to language andbilingual Hebrew–Arabic education. It examines and compares the attitudes of Jews andArabs towards this type of education in Israel and explores factors which may bear onthese attitudes. Arab–Jewish coeducation in Israel is considered a daring enterprise consid-ering the socio-political context in the country (Bekerman & Horenczyk, 2004). It is thusimportant to examine the extent to which the public is willing to accept and supportbilingual education and to learn more about predictors and correlates of attitudes towardsbilingual education.

Background

Jewish–Arab relations in Israel have been impacted by the difficult political situation in theregion. Both Arabs and Jews see themselves as the indigenous population of the land(Ghanem, 2001; Smooha, 2005). Israel declared its statehood in 1948; most of the existingArab population within the country fled or was expelled, and those remaining became a

ISSN 0790-8318 print/ISSN 1747-7573 online

# 2011 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/07908318.2011.584626

http://www.informaworld.com

∗Corresponding author. Email: azaiza@research.haifa.ac.il

Language, Culture and CurriculumVol. 24, No. 2, July 2011, 179–193

Downloaded By: [University of Haifa] At: 12:59 22 June 2011

minority within Israel and were under military rule for nearly two decades. Today, the Arabcitizens of Israel still experience discrimination in many areas, and they have suffered as aputatively hostile minority with little political representation (Al-Haj, 1998; Bekerman &Maoz, 2005; Smooha, 2005). Relations between Jewish and Arab citizens were furtherstrained following the events of October 2000, when violent demonstrations held byArab protesters were aggressively handled by the police, resulting in the deaths of 12Arab citizens and 1 Jewish citizen (Or, Hativ, & Shamir, 2003).

The Jewish–Arab conflict in the region at large, as well as the conflict between JewishIsraelis and Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and in the Gaza strip, also influencesJewish–Arab relations. The Arab citizens of Israel, however, perceive themselves as aunique group, and their views often differ from those of the Palestinians living outsideIsrael (White Stephan, Hertz-Lazarowitz, Zelniker, & Stephan, 2004).

Arabs and Jews differ in language, culture, religion, level of religiosity, nationality andnationalism and they live separately and together at the same time. There are separate cities,small towns and villages. Even in mixed cities, Arab and Jewish neighbourhoods and com-munity life, including schools, are separate. However, the two populations do interact insome areas: in workplaces, in public institutions or through commerce and in academia(Hertz-Lazarowitz, 2003; Kraemer, 1993; Mor-Sommerfeld, Azaiza, & Hertz-Lazarowitz,2007).

Although both Arabic and Hebrew are official languages, Israel does not function as atruly bilingual state. Hebrew predominates in all areas of life (Amara, 2005; Saban &Amara, 2002). Use of Arabic in public domains is limited, and it is treated as a secondarylanguage (Amara & Mar’i, 2002). Consequently, most of the linguistic and culturaladaptation in Israel is done by the Arab minority (Smooha, 2005).

Education in Israel

Israel has mostly a public school system. The Ministry of Education supervises separatesystems for Arabic speakers and for Hebrew speakers (Mor-Sommerfeld et al., 2007).The languages of study are Hebrew in Jewish schools and Hebrew and Arabic in Arabschools. For the most part, Arab teachers work in Arab schools and Jewish teacherswork in Jewish schools (Okun & Friedlander, 2005). Jewish children (except ultra-OrthodoxJews) take English as a second language in the third or fourth grade and later choose Frenchor Arabic as a third language. Arab children take Hebrew as a second language in thesecond or third grade (Abu-Rabia, 2005; Ben-Rafael, 1994) and subsequently English asa third language (obligatory) in the third or fourth grade.

For many years, Hebrew speakers learned Arabic as a second language based on theview that knowing it served the need to ‘know the enemy’ (Amara, 2002). A commonreason for studying Arabic among adolescents was the desire to use it during their mili-tary service (Abu-Rabia, 1998a). Few scholars stressed the need to know the neighbour’slanguage (Brosh, 1996; Mor-Sommerfeld, 2005). After the Oslo agreements betweenIsrael and the Palestinians in 1993, the latter concept spread, becoming an importantagenda of the Ministry of Education (Brosh, 1996). Still, Abu-Rabia (1998b) found agenerally negative attitude towards the Arabic language among Jewish pupils andsuggested that they were not interested in interacting or being culturally open to theArab minority in Israel. In addition, Jewish pupils often consider Arabic to be oflittle use to them in terms of future university studies, job opportunities and even asa tool of communication, as most Arab citizens of Israel speak Hebrew (Spolsky &Shohamy, 1999).

180 F. Azaiza et al.

Downloaded By: [University of Haifa] At: 12:59 22 June 2011

Arabs in Israel generally consider Hebrew a useful language for pragmatic purposes,and many young people are encouraged to learn it and Israeli patterns of behaviour inorder to benefit and join the progress that Israel is perceived to be enjoying (Amara &Mar’i, 2002). Arab pupils’ interest in learning Hebrew appears to be based mostly oninstrumental reasons (Abu-Rabia, 1996).

The previously reported findings relate to pupils studying in monolingual, non-integrated schools. Interaction between young Jews and Arabs in the Israeli educationsystem ranges from limited to non-existent (Zelniker & Hertz-Lazarowitz, 2005). Someprivate educational programmes are available for schools, but they are not part of thegeneral curriculum; schools can, on the principals’ initiative, participate in them(Abu-Nimer, 2004; Hertz-Lazarowitz, 2004). A more notable exception to the segregationthat exists in most Israeli educational settings is the country’s Hebrew–Arabic bilingualschools (Amara, 2005).

Bilingual education in Israel

Israel’s bilingual schools offer a long-term setting for Arab–Jewish interaction and anopportunity for both languages to be taught on a relatively equal footing. The first suchschool was established in 1984 and is located in Oasis of Peace, a Jewish-Arab village.The other four have all been established since 1998 by the Hand in Hand Center forJewish–Arab Education. Schools currently operate in the Galilee and Kafr Qara in northernIsrael, in Jerusalem and in Beer Sheva (southern Israel). The schools make an effort to enrolapproximately equal numbers of Arabic- and Hebrew-speaking children and emphasisesymmetry between the two languages in all aspects of instruction (Amara, Azaiza, Mor-Sommerfeld, & Hertz-Lazarowitz, 2007). The other group’s history and culture are alsotaught (Amara, 2005). The desired outcome of Israel’s bilingual schools has been describedas ‘youth who can acknowledge and respect one another, while at the same time cultivatingloyalty to their own cultural heritage’ (Bekerman & Shhadi, 2003, p. 473).

Parents send their children to bilingual schools for different reasons. Arab parents oftendo so to afford their children better opportunities for educational excellence and to becomeproficient users of Hebrew and advance in a country in which Hebrew is the main language.Jewish parents are often driven by ideological reasons, wanting their children to get to knowArab culture and society in order to break down socio-political barriers (Amara et al., 2007).

Initial findings from many bilingual and multilingual programmes indicate three mainbenefits: a high level of multilingualism; equal opportunity for academic achievement; anda strong, positive multilingual and multicultural identity, including positive attitudestowards self and others (e.g. Calderon & Slavin, 2001; Mor-Sommerfeld, 2002; Siegel &Abu Rabia, 2006). The use of a minority language in the classroom may result in more posi-tive intergroup attitudes among dominant-language speakers (Bekerman & Horenczyk,2004; Wright & Bougie, 2007). Shared interests within the framework of bilingual edu-cation can help develop mutual, positive attitudes towards others and their language,culture and history (Hertz-Lazarowitz, Mor-Sommerfeld, Zelniker, & Azaiza, 2008).

Despite these possible advantages, bilingual education in Israel has been promotedmostly by NGOs and by individuals. This may be because bilingual education is perceivedas being highly challenging in a society that lives in the context of an intractable conflict(Bar-Tal, 2007). Even parents of children attending bilingual schools appear to be con-cerned about the implications that participation in the bilingual context might have fortheir children’s cultural, ethnic, religious and national identities (Bekerman & Horenczyk,2004).

Language, Culture and Curriculum 181

Downloaded By: [University of Haifa] At: 12:59 22 June 2011

Predicting attitudes towards languages and bilingual education

It is generally accepted that members of minorities are more likely to be supportive of bilin-gual education than members of majority groups. For instance, people from various ethnicminorities in the USA have been found to be supportive of bilingual education for their chil-dren (Houvouras, 2001; Shin, 2000; Young & Tran, 1999). Meanwhile, Anglos in the USAare more likely to oppose bilingual education, an attitude that apparently stems from tworelated reasons: prejudice and perception of threat (Huddy & Sears, 1995). Althoughmembers of linguistic minorities may wish to learn the dominant language for instrumentalreasons, their native language can come to symbolise independence and separation (Baker,2006).

Some studies have attempted to identify additional factors related to attitudes towardsbilingual education. In a Canadian study (Adsett & Morin, 2004), contact with the otherlinguistic group and knowledge of the other official language were generally predictiveof acceptance of a linguistically dual Canadian identity. In the USA, Houvouras (2001)found that women and younger people are more likely to express positive attitudestowards bilingual education, while well-educated people are more likely to oppose it.She suggested that this may be the result of better-educated people being more investedin preserving their dominance in society.

Research in this domain done in Israel has focused mainly on language attitudes andattitudes towards the other group, rather than on attitudes towards bilingual educationspecifically. In Shohamy and Donitsa-Schmidt’s (1998) study, older Jews were found tohave more positive attitudes towards peace and ethnic identity and lower stereotypicalperceptions of Arabic than younger Jews. Kaminsky and Bar-Tal (1996) reported that thehawkish-religious attitudes typical of religious Jewish students are related to a negativeperception of Arab citizens of Israel. Association with left-wing parties has been linkedto a more positive view of studying Arabic among Jews, with the exception of Russianimmigrants (Shohamy & Donitsa-Schmidt, 1998). Higher proficiency in the other languagehas been linked with more positive attitudes towards multilingualism and towards studyingArabic in Jewish schools among both Jews and Arabs (Shohamy & Donitsa-Schmidt,1998).

Hypotheses

This study is intended to gauge public attitudes regarding bilingual Hebrew–Arabeducation in Israel among Jewish and Arab citizens and to explore links betweenbackground variables, perceptions, and attitudes and behavioural intentions regardingbilingualism, in general, and bilingual education, in particular. Based on past findingsand on the socio-political context in Israel, we hypothesise the following.

(1) Arab participants will have more positive attitudes towards bilingual education, aswell as towards the status of the Arab language and towards integration, than Jews.

(2) The following background variables will be linked with positive attitudes towardsbilingual education among Jews and Arabs: higher levels of education, a left-wingpolitical stance, regular contact with the second language, being female and lowerreligiosity.

(3) Support for the importance of the Arabic language, support for integrationbetween Jews and Arabs and support for various characteristics of a civilsociety will be positive predictors of attitudes towards bilingual educationamong Jews and Arabs.

182 F. Azaiza et al.

Downloaded By: [University of Haifa] At: 12:59 22 June 2011

Method

Sample

In this study, which was conducted by means of a telephone survey, 1014 adult (over 18)citizens of Israel took part. Of these, 513 were Arabs and 501 were Jews. Of the partici-pants, 520 were female (51.3%) and 494 were male (48.7%). The average age amongthe Arabs was 37.83 (SD 12.95) and that among the Jews was 45.65 (SD 15.59). Thesample was generally representative of Israel’s population (Central Bureau of Statistics,2009a, 2009b), with the following notable exceptions: first, the proportion of Arabs inthe sample was much higher than that in the actual population; and second, within theArab sample, Christians and Druze participants were over-represented. In both cases, thiswas done in order to ensure a sufficient number of respondents from the relevant popu-lations. Table 1 presents key characteristics of the sample.

Most participants, both Jewish and Arab, were married with children; a greaterpercentage of the Jews were divorced or widowed. Most Arab participants were religiousor somewhat religious (about 60%); most Jewish participants were non-religious orsecular (about 60%). About 40% of the Arab participants had education beyond highschool compared with about 60% of the Jewish participants. Most participants wereemployed, though rates were higher in the Jewish sample, reflecting low levels of labourforce participation by Arab women (Central Bureau of Statistics, 2009a). Economicstatus was above average for about a third of all participants, average for about a quarterof them and below average for about 40% of them.

Instruments

The questionnaire developed for this study was based on prior work done by us that dealtwith various aspects of Jewish–Arab relations in Israel. It included background questions toobtain demographic and socio-economic information and questions on attitudes towardsbilingual education, towards Hebrew and Arabic, towards civic equality and integrationand regarding knowledge and fluency in Hebrew, Arabic and English. The questionnairewas translated into Arabic and the quality of the translation was assessed by two Arabicspeakers with extensive background in quantitative research.

An exploratory factor analysis revealed six factors: attitudes regarding bilingualeducation; knowledge of Hebrew; knowledge of English; the importance and place ofArabic; attitudes regarding integration; and attitudes regarding a civil society. Becauseonly a minority of the Jewish respondents reported knowing Arabic, we did not includequestions assessing Arabic fluency in the factor analysis. In this article, our analysisfocused on four of the factors, which were measured using the following scales.

(1) Attitudes towards Bilingual Education: this scale was constructed for the presentstudy and included six items assessing attitudes towards bilingual Hebrew–Arabeducation at different levels of schooling (e.g. kindergarten and high school), aswell as willingness to send one’s children to such schools. Sample items: Towhat extent do you support the existence of joint bilingual Arabic–Hebrewschools in Israel? Would you be willing to have your children study in jointArabic–Hebrew educational settings? Answers were given on a five-point scalewith 1 ¼ opposed and 5 ¼ strongly supportive. Cronbach’s a was 0.94.

(2) Support for Integration: the scale was adapted from the social and personal inte-gration items in Smooha’s (2005) Index of Arab–Jewish Relations. It included

Language, Culture and Curriculum 183

Downloaded By: [University of Haifa] At: 12:59 22 June 2011

Table 1. Characteristics of the sample.

Arab Jews Total Difference

Age M (SD) 37.83 (12.95) 45.65 (15.59) 41.67 (14.82) t(958.38) ¼ 7.82∗∗∗

N % N % N %Gender Male 260 50.7 234 46.7 494 48.7 Z ¼ 1.27

Female 253 49.3 267 53.3 520 51.3Family status Single 109 21.2 96 19.3 205 20.3 x2(3) ¼ 34.67∗∗∗

Married 396 77.2 351 70.5 747 73.9Divorced 4 0.8 27 5.4 31 3.0Widowed 4 0.8 24 4.8 28 2.8

Children Yes 380 74.2 385 79.4 765 76.7 Z ¼ 1.93No 132 25.8 100 20.6 232 23.3

Religiosity Very religious 39 7.7 40 8.1 79 7.9 Z ¼ 11.21∗∗∗

Religious 154 30.5 59 11.9 213 21.3Somewhat 164 32.5 86 17.4 250 25.0Non-religious 88 17.4 53 10.7 141 14.1Secular 60 11.9 257 51.9 317 31.7

Education Elementary 67 13.1 25 5.0 92 9.1 Z ¼ 7.35∗∗∗

High school 231 45.0 167 33.6 398 39.4Seminar, college 91 17.7 84 16.9 175 17.3University 124 24.2 221 44.5 345 34.2

Employment Yes 309 60.2 371 74.5 680 67.3 Z ¼ 4.83∗∗∗

No 204 39.8 127 25.5 331 32.7Economic status High above average 61 12.3 60 13.2 121 12.7 Z ¼ 1.78

Above average 82 16.5 98 21.5 180 18.9Average 128 25.8 111 24.4 239 25.1Below average 106 21.3 92 20.2 198 20.8Much below average 120 24.1 94 20.7 214 22.5

∗∗∗p , 0.001.

184F.

Azaiza

etal.

Downloaded By: [University of Haifa] At: 12:59 22 June 2011

six items such as support for friendship between Arabs and Jews and for Arabparties joining coalitions. Sample items: To what extent should the following beprevented or encouraged – friendly relationships between Jews and Arabs?Encounters between Jewish and Arab youths? Responses were given on a five-point Likert scale with 5 ¼ strong support and 1 ¼ no support. Cronbach’salpha of 0.88 was found for this scale.

(3) Civil Society: this was a three-item scale assessing support for several featurestypical of a civil society and adapted from Smooha (2005). Sample item: Thestate will recognise Jews and Arabs as equal national groups and as full andequal partners in running the state. Responses were given on a five-point Likertscale with 5 ¼ strong support and 1 ¼ no support. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.79.

(4) Status of Arabic: this four-item scale examined what place respondents feel theArabic language should have in public life and in official contexts. Sampleitems: Every Israeli citizen should know the Arabic language; Arabic is an impor-tant language and should be taught as a required subject in Israeli schools.Responses were given on a five-point Likert scale with 1 ¼disagree and 5 ¼strongly agree. Cronbach’s a was 0.80.

Procedure

Participants were randomly selected to participate in a telephone survey and were contactedby a research assistant. They were told that they had been contacted to take part in a studyabout Hebrew–Arabic bilingual education in Israel and asked if they would be willing toanswer some questions. The interviewers then solicited the participants’ responses basedon the questionnaire described in the previous section. Interviews were done in Hebrewwith Jewish participants and in Arabic with Arab participants. The interviews were doneanonymously with no identifying information being asked for.

Results

While most Arab participants knew Hebrew, only about a third of the Jews reported anyknowledge of Arabic. Most participants, in both populations, reported that they live innon-mixed cities or towns, with more Jewish participants (19%) living in mixed citiesthan Arab participants (8%). Of those employed, more Arab than Jewish participantswork in mixed workplaces (32% vs. 21%), and there are more Arab participants whowork in Jewish places (20%) than Jewish participants who work in Arab places (1%)(Table 2). About half of the Arab participants use Hebrew in their workplace comparedwith less than one-tenth of the Jewish participants using Arabic in their workplace. Like-wise, about two-thirds of the Arab participants reported daily contact with Hebrew-speaking persons compared with less than a third of the Jewish participants reportingsuch contact with Arabic-speaking persons. Finally, most Arab participants held left-wing or radical left-wing political views (68%), whereas most Jewish participants heldright-wing or radical right-wing views (41%) or were at the centre of the politicalspectrum (38%).

We then turned to examining the links between the attitudinal variables. For these vari-ables, a higher score indicates a more positive attitude. Before presenting the analysisregarding these links, we would like to highlight some findings of interest regarding indi-vidual items within the scales. The Status of Arabic scale included an item about whether

Language, Culture and Curriculum 185

Downloaded By: [University of Haifa] At: 12:59 22 June 2011

Arabic instruction should be mandatory in Jewish schools. In total, 96% of the Arab par-ticipants and 67% of the Jewish participants strongly supported this option. The Attitudestowards Bilingual Education scale included an item about the participants’ willingness tohave their children attend a bilingual school. In total, 40% of the Jewish participants and69% of the Arab participants expressed such willingness; 33% of the Jewish participantsand 10% of the Arab participants objected to the possibility completely.

Correlations among the study variables were significant, showing positive relationshipsbetween attitudes towards bilingual education, attitudes regarding the importance of Arabic,attitudes regarding a civil society and equality and attitudes regarding Arab–Jewish

Table 2. Background information relating to the other population by nationality (N ¼ 1014).

Arab Jews Total

DifferenceN % N % N %

Knowledge of thesecond language

Yes 482 94.3 191 38.2 673 66.6 Z ¼ 18.90∗∗∗

No 29 5.7 309 61.8 338 33.4Place of residence Non-mixed city 202 39.4 308 61.7 510 50.4 x2(2) ¼ 191.64∗∗∗

Mixed city 43 8.4 95 19.1 138 13.6Non-mixed

town/village257 50.1 43 8.6 300 29.7

Other 11 2.1 53 10.6 64 6.3Place of employment Arab 148 48.4 3 0.8 151 22.7 Z ¼ 16.69∗∗∗

Mixed 98 32.0 76 21.0 174 26.0Jewish 60 19.6 283 78.2 343 51.3

Language at place ofemployment

Only Arabic 75 24.4 3 0.8 78 11.6 Z ¼ 14.94∗∗∗

Mostly Arabic 36 11.7 3 0.8 39 5.8Arabic +

Hebrew96 31.3 25 6.8 121 18.0

Mostly Hebrew 38 12.4 90 24.6 128 19.0Only Hebrew 30 9.8 154 42.4 184 27.4Other

languages32 10.4 90 24.6 122 18.2

Daily relations – thesecond language

A lot 177 34.7 60 12.1 237 23.5 Z ¼ 11.71∗∗∗

Some 149 29.2 89 17.9 238 23.6A little 119 23.3 163 32.7 282 28.0None 65 12.8 186 37.3 251 24.9

Arab identity Arab 64 13.0 – – – – –Arab Israeli 173 35.1Arab

Palestinian65 13.2

Arab IsraeliPalestinian

108 21.9

Other 83 16.8Jewish identity Jewish – – 52 10.5 – – –

Jewish Israeli 238 48.0Jewish 154 31.0Zionist 52 10.5Other

Political affiliation Radical left 57 22.4 4 1.0 61 9.1 Z ¼ 12.74∗∗∗

Left 115 45.3 86 20.5 201 29.8Centre 59 23.2 158 37.6 217 32.2Right 18 7.1 149 35.5 167 24.7Radical right 5 2.0 23 5.5 28 4.2

∗∗∗p , 0.001.

186 F. Azaiza et al.

Downloaded By: [University of Haifa] At: 12:59 22 June 2011

integration in each population as well as in the full sample (Table 3). Correlations in theJewish sample were stronger than those in the Arab sample.

As hypothesised, daily contact with the second language (contact with Hebrew-speakingpersons for the Arabs and with Arabic-speaking persons for the Jews) was positively relatedto the four attitude variables (r ¼ 0.20–0.25, p , 0.001). Political stance was negativelycorrelated to the attitude variables (r ¼ 20.40 to r ¼ 20.49, p , 0.001) showing that aleft-wing position meant more favourable attitudes, also in line with our predictions.Other background variables had weaker relationships with the study variables in the fullsample.

Differences between Jews and Arabs in the attitudes were examined using aMANCOVA, controlling for education, religiosity, daily contact with the other languageand political stance (defined as dummy variables: education 0 ¼ high school and lower,1 ¼ above high school; religiosity 0 ¼ religious, 1 ¼ non-religious; daily contact withthe other language 0 ¼ none to low, 1 ¼ medium to high; political stance 0 ¼ left wingand centre, 1 ¼ right wing). However, it should be noted that only two-thirds of thesample responded to the question regarding political affiliation. Thus, differences in atti-tudes were first examined without controlling for political stance and then controlling for it.

Table 3. Means, standard deviations and correlations among the study variables (N ¼ 1014).

M (SD) 1 2 3 4

Total sample1. Attitudes towards bilingual education 3.27 (1.23) 0.50∗∗∗ 0.52∗∗∗ 0.70∗∗∗

2. Importance of Arabic 3.72 (1.06) 0.52∗∗∗ 0.47∗∗∗

3. Civic society and equality 3.84 (1.24) 0.62∗∗∗

4. Arab–Jewish integration 3.66 (1.15)Arab (N ¼ 513)

1. Attitudes towards bilingual education 3.73 (1.02) 0.19∗∗∗ 0.10∗ 0.48∗∗∗

2. Importance of Arabic 4.34 (0.66) 0.15∗∗ 0.17∗∗∗

3. Civic society and equality 4.49 (0.84) 0.22∗∗∗

4. Arab–Jewish integration 4.10 (0.81)Jewish (N ¼ 501)

1. Attitudes towards bilingual education 2.79 (1.26) 0.47∗∗∗ 0.59∗∗∗ 0.74∗∗∗

2. Importance of Arabic 3.08 (1.03) 0.36∗∗∗ 0.40∗∗∗

3. Civic society and equality 3.17 (1.23) 0.66∗∗∗

4. Arab–Jewish integration 3.21 (1.26)

∗p , 0.05; ∗∗p , 0.01; ∗∗∗p , 0.001.

Table 4. MANCOVA of attitudes expressed by Jews and Arabs towards bilingual education,importance of Arabic, civic society and Arab–Jewish integration (N ¼ 985).

Arab(N ¼ 500)

Jews(N ¼ 485)

DifferenceM SD M SD F(1,980) (h2)

Attitudes towards bilingual education 3.72 1.02 2.81 1.25 174.68∗∗∗ (0.15)Importance of Arabic 4.34 0.66 3.08 1.02 402.44∗∗∗ (0.29)Civic society and equality 4.50 0.82 3.18 1.22 378.36∗∗∗ (0.28)Arab–Jewish integration 4.10 0.82 3.22 1.25 205.47∗∗∗ (0.17)

Notes: F(4,977) ¼ 152.36, p , 0.001, h2 ¼ 0.38.∗∗∗p , 0.001.

Language, Culture and Curriculum 187

Downloaded By: [University of Haifa] At: 12:59 22 June 2011

The MANCOVA showed significant effects for all variables (Table 4). Arab participantsheld significantly more favourable attitudes towards bilingual education, about the impor-tance of Arabic, about civic society and equality and about Arab–Jewish integration. Thus,our first hypothesis was supported.

Controlling for political affiliation left the analysis significant (F(4,651) ¼ 58.13, p ,

0.001, h2 ¼ 0.26), although the effect size was somewhat decreased. All differencesremained significant (p , 0.001), with effect sizes ranging from 0.06 to 0.21. That is, atti-tudinal differences are beyond demographic variables, daily contact with the other languageand political stance.

Predicting attitudes towards bilingual education

Pearson’s correlations between attitudes towards bilingual education and demographic vari-ables (age, gender, education, religiosity and economic status) in the Arab sample were low.Two significant correlations were found for age (r ¼ 0.10, p , 0.05) and education (r ¼20.10, p , 0.05): the latter is contradictory to the hypothesised direction of the relation-ship. Daily contact with the Hebrew language was positively related to attitudes towardsbilingual education (r ¼ 0.11, p , 0.05). Thus, age, education and daily contact withHebrew were entered in the first step of the regression analysis predicting attitudestowards bilingual education. Attitudes about the importance of Arabic, about civicsociety and equality and about Arab–Jewish integration were entered in the second step.

The regression analysis showed that 26% of the variance in the Arab participants’ atti-tudes towards bilingual education was explained (Table 5). Lower education, attitudesfavouring Arabic as an important language and attitudes favouring Arab–Jewish integrationwere predictive of attitudes favouring bilingual education. Attitudes favouring Arab–Jewishintegration are the strongest predictors of the attitudes regarding bilingual education.

Pearson’s correlations between attitudes towards bilingual education and demographicvariables in the Jewish sample were low to moderate. Three significant correlations werefound for age (r ¼ 0.15, p , 0.05), education (r ¼ 0.09, p , 0.05) and religiosity (r ¼0.38, p , 0.001). Political stance was negatively related to attitudes towards bilingual

Table 5. Multiple hierarchical regression predicting attitudes towards bilingual education amongArab participants (N ¼ 508).

B SeB b

Step 1Age 0.01 0.01 0.09∗

Education 20.26 0.09 20.13∗∗

Daily contact with Hebrew 0.25 0.10 0.12∗

Step 2Age 0.01 0.01 0.05Education 20.19 0.08 20.09∗

Daily contact with Hebrew 0.11 0.09 0.05Importance of Arabic 0.15 0.06 0.09∗

Civic society and equality 20.01 0.05 20.01Arab–Jewish integration 0.57 0.05 0.46∗∗∗

Notes: Step 1: R2 ¼ 0.03, p , 0.01; Step 2: DR2 ¼ 0.23, p , 0.001, Model R2 ¼ 0.26, p , 0.001, F(6,501) ¼28.81. Education: 0 ¼ high school and lower, 1 ¼ above high school; daily contact with the other language: 0¼ none to low, 1 ¼ medium to high.∗p , 0.05; ∗∗p , 0.01; ∗∗∗p , 0.001.

188 F. Azaiza et al.

Downloaded By: [University of Haifa] At: 12:59 22 June 2011

education (r ¼ 20.46, p , 0.001, N ¼ 419). Thus, age, education, religiosity and politicalstance may be entered in the first step of the regression analysis. However, missing datapose a difficulty regarding the use of political stance in the regression, and its correlationwith religiosity is r ¼ 20.45 (p , 0.001), showing that religiosity among Jewishpersons is related to a right-wing tendency. Thus, the regression was conducted with age,education and religiosity entered at the first step.

The regression analysis showed that 60% of the variance in the Jewish participants’attitudes towards bilingual education was explained by the model (Table 6). Being non-religious, attitudes favouring Arabic as an important language, attitudes favouring civicsociety and equality and attitudes favouring Arab–Jewish integration were predictive ofattitudes favouring bilingual education. It should be noted that, similar to the Arab partici-pants, attitudes favouring Arab–Jewish integration are the strongest predictors of theattitudes regarding bilingual education.

It should be noted that conducting the regression with the addition of political affiliation(N ¼ 405) yielded similar results: R2 ¼ 0.60, (p , 0.001), b for religiosity ¼ 0.09 (p ,

0.05), b for importance of Arab language ¼ 0.19 (p , 0.001), b for civic society andequality ¼ 0.10 (p , 0.05) and b for Arab–Jewish integration ¼ 0.58 (p , 0.001),with political affiliation being non-significant. Taken together, the results of the tworegression models are in line with our second and third hypotheses.

Discussion

This study set out to examine attitudes towards bilingual education among Jews and Arabsand to explore correlates and predictors of these attitudes. With the establishment of severalbilingual schools in Israel in the past decade and in light of the complex Israeli–Arab pol-itical context, it is important to identify factors linked to support for this type of educationand to consider the implications of these findings. As far as we are aware, this is the firstsystematic and comprehensive study of attitudes towards bilingual education in Israel.

As hypothesised, Arabs were indeed more likely to support bilingual education thanJews, which is line with the findings from studies done on ethnic minority members in

Table 6. Multiple hierarchical regression predicting attitudes towards bilingual education amongJewish participants (N ¼ 481).

B SeB b

Step 1Age 0.01 0.01 0.13∗∗

Education 0.10 0.11 0.04Religiosity 0.95 0.11 0.37∗∗∗

Step 2Age 20.01 0.01 20.01Education 0.02 0.08 0.01Religiosity 0.17 0.09 0.07∗

Importance of Arabic 0.25 0.04 0.20∗∗∗

Civic society and equality 0.13 0.04 0.13∗∗

Arab–Jewish integration 0.55 0.04 0.55∗∗∗

Notes: Step 1: R2 ¼ 0.16, p , 0.001; Step 2: DR2 ¼ 0.44, p , 0.001, Model R2 ¼ 0.60, p , 0.001, F(6,474) ¼117.37. Education: 0 ¼ high school and lower, 1 ¼ above high school; religiosity: 0 ¼ religious, 1 ¼ non-religious.∗p , 0.05; ∗∗p , 0.01; ∗∗∗p , 0.001.

Language, Culture and Curriculum 189

Downloaded By: [University of Haifa] At: 12:59 22 June 2011

the USA (e.g. Shin, 2000; Young & Tran, 1999). This finding, though expected, can beexplained in several ways. First, there may be instrumental considerations at play: asAmara et al. (2007) noted, Arab parents see bilingual schools as offering their childrenbetter opportunities for educational excellence and ensuring that their children becomeproficient users of Hebrew, which is important if they are to succeed and advance inIsrael. It is also possible that Israeli Jews feel more threatened by bilingual education,which challenges the traditional power structure in Israel. An additional explanationwould be that this is the result of the relatively low status of Arabic and its perceivedlack of usefulness among a large portion of the Jewish population (Spolsky & Shohamy,1999); even in the bilingual schools themselves, there appear to be greater presence anddominance of the Hebrew language (Amara, Azaiza, Hertz-Lazarowitz, & Mor-Sommerfeld, 2009).

The background variables had significant relationships with attitudes towards bilingualeducation in some but not all cases. Older age was related to more positive attitudes in bothpopulations, while lower religiosity and left-wing political beliefs were related to positiveattitudes only among the Jewish sample. The Arab sample was more homogeneous in termsof religiosity and political beliefs, which may have resulted in lower variance and a reducedlikelihood of differences based on those variables. Relationships between the level of edu-cation and attitudes towards bilingual education were positive among the Jews but negativeamong the Arabs. It is possible that among Jewish participants, the previously establishedlink between a higher level of education and more liberal opinions on non-economic issues(e.g. Weakliem, 2002) held true. Meanwhile, among the Arab population, more educatedpeople may be keener on preserving their cultural uniqueness and could view bilingualeducation for their children as a hindrance to doing so; this possibility, however, was notput to a direct test and remains a conjecture at this point, particularly considering thatthe relationship was not strong.

Although attitudes regarding both a civil society and the status of Arabic predictedbilingual education, as expected, attitudes towards integration were the strongest predictorsamong both Jews and Arabs. The strength of this relationship can be explained by the natureof bilingual schools. Although the dual Hebrew–Arabic curriculum is a key feature ofbilingual schools, it can be argued that the integrated context is what makes them trulyunique and that it is, therefore, this aspect of bilingual education on which the level ofsupport hinges most strongly. As noted before, the vast majority of schools in Israel offerno opportunity for integration between Jewish and Arab children (Okun & Friedlander,2005). Bilingual education aims to challenge and change the reality of segregation by creatinga common ground where children and adults can meet and learn together (Svirsky,Mor-Sommerfeld, Azaiza, & Hertz-Lazarowitz, 2007). It seems likely that those who areinclined to support integration between Jews and Arabs in one context will also reactpositively towards it in other contexts.

While the present study introduces some interesting findings, we acknowledge severallimitations. First, this is a self-report survey and, as such, may have been affected byresponse bias. In addition, while we examined differences between Jews and Arabs inIsrael, we did not separate these groups further; internal minority groups, such asRussian-Jewish immigrants or the Druze community, may exhibit unique characteristics.Finally, we focused on bilingual education in the context of language attitudes and inte-gration and did not directly examine attitudes regarding a key characteristic of bilingualeducation in Israel, namely the teaching of both historical narratives. Salomon (2004),following Sagy, Adwan, Kaplan, Farhat and Kassem (2000), pointed out that the Jewishand Palestinian narratives are contradictory to such an extent that both sides show little

190 F. Azaiza et al.

Downloaded By: [University of Haifa] At: 12:59 22 June 2011

empathy for the other narrative and express great anger at it. This is an issue that should beaddressed in future research.

Turning to policy implications, our findings indicate that there is interest among theArab and Jewish population of Israel in bilingual Jewish–Arab schooling and for givingArabic a greater place in society, for instance, through Arabic studies for Jewish children.The Ministry of Education should take note of this and encourage more initiatives toestablish bilingual schools in new locations, as well as mandating Arabic instruction forall grades in Hebrew schools and improving the way this language is taught. Symmetryin the knowledge and use of Arabic and Hebrew may not be viable under the currentsocio-political circumstances, but highly functional bilingualism among Jewish pupils ispossible if the right policies, language practices and teaching programmes are developedand implemented (Amara et al., 2009).

Further research is needed not only to address issues that are beyond the scope of thepresent investigation, but also due to the fluidity of the Israeli–Arab context in general,and Arab–Jewish relations inside Israel in particular. In the past decade or so, eventssuch as the Al-Aqsa Intifada and the events of October 2000, Israel’s unilateral disengage-ment from Gaza in 2005, the Israeli–Lebanese war in the summer of 2006 and OperationCast Lead, carried out by Israel in Gaza in late 2008, all affected relations between Jews andArabs, both in and outside Israel. Future events will doubtless have a profound effect onhow Arab and Jewish citizens of Israel view one another and, as an extension of this, onhow they view bilingual education.

ReferencesAbu-Nimer, M. (2004). Education for coexistence and Arab–Jewish encounters in Israel: Potential

and challenges. Journal of Social Issues, 60(2), 405–422.Abu-Rabia, S. (1996). Attitudes of Arab minority students in Israel and Canada toward learning a

second language. The Journal of Social Psychology, 136(4), 541–544.Abu-Rabia, S. (1998a). The influence of the Israel–Arab conflict on Israeli–Jewish students learning

Arabic as a third language. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 11(2), 154–164.Abu-Rabia, S. (1998b). The learning of Hebrew by Israeli Arab students in Israel. The Journal of

Social Psychology, 138(3), 331–341.Abu-Rabia, S. (Ed.). (2005). The language resources of Israel (special issue). Language, Culture and

Curriculum, 18(1), 1–138.Adsett, M., & Morin, M. (2004). Contact and regional variation in attitudes towards linguistic duality

in Canada. Journal of Canadian Studies, 38(2), 129–150.Al-Haj, M. (1998). Education, empowerment and control: The case of the Arabs in Israel. Albany,

NY: SUNY Press.Amara, M. (2002). The place of Arabic in Israel. International Journal of Sociolinguistics and

Language, 158, 53–68.Amara, M. (2005). The bilingual education model of Hand-in-Hand. Jerusalem: Hand in Hand,

Centre for Jewish-Arab Education in Israel (in Hebrew).Amara, M., Azaiza, F., Hertz-Lazarowitz, R., & Mor-Sommerfeld, A. (2009). A new bilingual

education model in the conflict-ridden Israeli reality: Language practices. Language andEducation, 23(1), 15–35.

Amara, M., Azaiza, F., Mor-Sommerfeld, A., & Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. (2007). Hand in Hand schools:Teaching programs. Haifa: The Jewish-Arab Center.

Amara, M.H., & Mar’i, A.A. (2002). Language education policy: The Arab minority in Israel.Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

Baker, C. (2006). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (4th ed.). Clevedon:Multilingual Matters.

Bar-Tal, D. (2007). Sociopsychological foundations of intractable conflicts. American BehavioralScientist, 50(11), 1430–1453.

Language, Culture and Curriculum 191

Downloaded By: [University of Haifa] At: 12:59 22 June 2011

Bekerman, Z., & Horenczyk, G. (2004). Arab–Jewish bilingual coeducation in Israel: A long-termapproach to intergroup conflict resolution. Journal of Social Issues, 60(2), 389–404.

Bekerman, Z., & Maoz, I. (2005). Troubles with identity: Obstacles to coexistence education inconflict ridden societies. Identity: An International Journal of Theory and Research, 5(4),341–357.

Bekerman, Z., & Shhadi, N. (2003). Palestinian–Jewish bilingual education in Israel: Its influence oncultural identities and its impact on intergroup conflict. Journal of Multilingual and MulticulturalDevelopment, 24(6), 473–484.

Ben-Rafael, E. (1994). Language, identity and social division: The case of Israel. New York, NY:Oxford University Press.

Brosh, H. (1996). Arabic to Hebrew speakers in Israel – ‘second language’ or ‘foreign language’.Helkat Lashon, 23, 111–131 (in Hebrew).

Calderon, M., & Slavin, R. (Eds.). (2001). Effective programs for Latino students. Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Central Bureau of Statistics. (2009a). The Arab population of Israel 2008. Jerusalem: Author.Central Bureau of Statistics. (2009b). Statistical abstract of Israel 2009 (No. 60). Jerusalem: Author.Ghanem, A. (2001). The Palestinian–Arab minority in Israel 1948–2001: A political study. Albany,

NY: SUNY Press.Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. (2003). Arab and Jewish youth in Israel: Voicing national injustice on campus.

Journal of Social Issues, 59(1), 51–66.Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. (2004). Existence and coexistence in Acre: The power of educational activism.

Journal of Social Issues, 60(2), 357–371.Hertz-Lazarowitz, R., Mor-Sommerfeld, A., Zelniker, T., & Azaiza, F. (2008). From ethnic segre-

gation to bilingual education: What can bilingual education do for the future of the Israelisociety? Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 6(2). Retrieved April 27, 2011, fromhttp://www.jceps.com/PDFs/6-2-08.pdf

Houvouras, S.K. (2001). The effects of demographic variables, ethnic prejudice, and attitudes towardimmigration on opposition to bilingual education. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences,23(2), 136–152.

Huddy, L., & Sears, D.O. (1995). Opposition to bilingual education: Prejudice or the defense ofrealistic interests? Social Psychology Quarterly, 58(2), 133–143.

Kaminsky, M., & Bar-Tal, D. (1996). Stereotypical perceptions regarding different labels of IsraeliArabs as a function of age and religiosity. Studies in Education, 1, 121–157 (in Hebrew).

Kraemer, R. (1993). Social psychological factors related to the study of Arabic among Israeli highschool students: A test of Gardner’s socioeducational model. Studies in Second LanguageAcquisition, 5(1), 83–105.

Mor-Sommerfeld, A. (2002). Language mosaic – developing literacy in a second-new language:A new perspective. Reading Literacy and Language, 36(3), 99–105.

Mor-Sommerfeld, A. (2005). Bilingual education in areas of conflict – bridging and sharing. RaceEquality Teaching, 24(1), 31–42.

Mor-Sommerfeld, A., Azaiza, F., & Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. (2007). Into the future – towards bilingualeducation in Israel. Education, Citizenship and Social Justice, 2(1), 5–22.

Okun, B.S., & Friedlander, D. (2005). Educational stratification among Arabs and Jews in Israel:Historical disadvantage, discrimination, and opportunity. Population Studies, 59(2), 163–180.

Or, T., Hativ, H., & Shamir, S. (2003). The report of the National Investigation Commission of thecollisions between the defense forces and Israeli citizens in October 2000. Jerusalem: TheSupreme Court, Israel (in Hebrew).

Saban, I., & Amara, M. (2002). The status of Arabic in Israel: Reflections on the power of law toproduce social change. Israel Law Review, 36(2), 5–39.

Sagy, S., Adwan, S., Kaplan, A., Farhat, M., & Kassem, F. (2000, May). Between conflict and coex-istence: Historical consciousness of Palestinian and Israeli high-school students. Paper presentedat the UNESCO conference on Higher Education for Peace, Tromso, Norway.

Salomon, G. (2004). A narrative-based view of coexistence education. Journal of Social Issues, 60(2),273–287.

Shin, F.H. (2000). Parent attitudes toward the principles of bilingual education and their children’sparticipation in bilingual programs. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 21(1), 93–99.

Shohamy, E., & Donitsa-Schmidt, S. (1998). Jews vs. Arabs: Language attitudes and stereotypes.Tel-Aviv: The Tami Steinmetz Center for Peace Research.

192 F. Azaiza et al.

Downloaded By: [University of Haifa] At: 12:59 22 June 2011

Siegel, L., & Abu Rabia, S. (2006, May). Interests and dilemmas in bilingual education research.Paper presented at the international seminar and conference ‘Into the Future: TowardsBilingual Education in Israel’, University of Haifa.

Smooha, S. (2005). The index of Arab–Jewish relations in Israel 2004. Haifa: The University ofHaifa, Jewish Arab Center.

Spolsky, B., & Shohamy, E. (1999). The languages of Israel: Policy, ideology and practice. Clevedon:Multilingual Matters.

Svirsky, M., Mor-Sommerfeld, A., Azaiza, F., & Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. (2007). Bilingual educationand practical interculturalism in Israel: The case of the Galilee. Discourse of SociologicalPractice, 8(1), 55–80.

Weakliem, D.L. (2002). The effects of education on political opinions: An international study.International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 14(2), 141–157.

White Stephan, C., Hertz-Lazarowitz, R., Zelniker, T., & Stephan, W.G. (2004). Introduction toimproving Arab–Jewish relations in Israel: Theory and practice in coexistence educationalprograms. Journal of Social Issues, 60(2), 237–252.

Wright, S.C., & Bougie, E. (2007). Intergroup contact and minority-language education: Reducinglanguage-based discrimination and its negative impact. Journal of Language and SocialPsychology, 26(2), 157–181.

Young, R.L., & Tran, M.T. (1999). Vietnamese parent attitudes toward bilingual education. BilingualResearch Journal, 23(2/3), 225–233.

Zelniker, T., & Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. (2005). School-family partnership for coexistence in the city ofAcre: Promoting Arab and Jewish parents’ role as facilitators of children’s literacy developmentand as agents of coexistence. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 18(1), 114–138.

Language, Culture and Curriculum 193

Downloaded By: [University of Haifa] At: 12:59 22 June 2011