Handbook of psychology volume 7 educational psychology

Diversity in Early Childhood Education: Individual Exceptionality and Cultural Pluralism

303

majority language prior to school entry. As a result, the goal of

preparing immigrant children in the majority language has

been pushed down to the preschool level (Kagan & Garcia,

1991; Prince & Lawrence, 1994; Wong Fillmore, 1991).

Within this context, researchers have become increasingly

concerned about the consequences of emphasizing English to

language-minority children during the preschool years. The

major concern is that this could result in a subtractive bilingual

experience; that is, the addition of the majority (second) lan-

guage can cause a deterioration or erosion of the native (first)

language. Thus, instead of English serving as enhancement to

the child’s linguistic repertoire, it often serves as a replace-

ment (Lambert & Taylor, 1983; Wong Fillmore, 1991; Wright,

Taylor, & Macarthur, 2000). Such subtractive processes can

be associated with considerable cognitive, emotional, and de-

velopmental risks (Cummins, 1991; Skutnabb-Kangas, 1981;

Wong Fillmore, 1991; Wright & Taylor, 1995). The extent to

which such language loss or subtractive bilingualism takes

place during the preschool years and the role that early educa-

tional institutions play in language development of these chil-

dren, however, have been matters of significant debate. We

turn now to this debate.

The Debate on Early Schooling of Language

Minority Children 

Perhaps the two important and interrelated questions raised

in this debate are these: When should children be exposed to

the majority language in a school-like setting? Is there a

threshold of native language skills that children should reach

before the majority language is introduced? In which lan-

guage should children be instructed in their early years?

A rapid acquisition of English in a school-like setting be-

fore competence in the native language has been achieved,

combined with a corresponding lack of incentive to develop

the native language, not only slow the native language devel-

opment but also adversely lead to difficulties in acquisition of

a second language (Cummins, 1986; Schiff-Myers, 1992). To

explain this bilingual language delay, many have cited Cum-

mins’s (1984, 1986) hypotheses of threshold and develop-

mental interdependence, which would suggest that a child’s

second language competence is partly a function of the com-

petence previously developed in the first language. The child

must acquire and maintain a threshold level of proficiency,

which include literacy skills as well as aural and oral skills, to

avoid the subtractive effects of second language instruction.

Therefore, if the first language proficiency is at a lower stage

before the second language is introduced, it is more difficult

to develop the second (Cummins, 1986; Lambert & Taylor,

1983; Skutnabb-Kangas, 1981; Soto, 1993). 

The acquisition of a second language at the preschool stage

can also lead to the loss of the home language (Cummins,

1991; Faulstich Orellana, 1994; Siren, 1991), which can, in

turn, cause serious problems with communication and social-

ization within the families (Wong Fillmore, 1991). This does

not mean that learning English, even in a limited way, should

be a taboo for young minority children; however, as Wong

Fillmore (1991, p. 345) stressed, “The problem is timing, not

English. The children have to learn English, but they should

not be required to do so until their native languages are stable

enough to handle the inevitable encounter with English and

all it means.” 

However, other researchers have recommended that

language-minority children take advantage of an early start in

introducing both languages (Baker & deKanter, 1983; Porter,

1991). Language skills require up to 7 years of practice to

reach the levels necessary for academic learning, and learn-

ing English in an ECE program can support the natural and

easy acquisition of a second language. Porter (1991), for ex-

ample, argued that early immersion in a second language,

preferably between ages 3 and 5, offers the greatest opportu-

nity to learn native pronunciation and the highest level of lit-

eracy in that language. The earlier the children learn a second

language, the more easily they appear to achieve high levels

of fluency.

The matter then rests as a problem of deciding the appro-

priate time and manner of exposing preschool-aged children

to a second-language setting to promote the children’s bilin-

gual competence, academic success, and family relations. A

missing component in this discussion is how this issue can af-

fect parents, who have the ultimate decisions of when and

how to balance the competing interest between the two lan-

guages. How, exactly, are immigrant parents of young chil-

dren dealing with these issues? 

In a study of immigrant parents in Sweden, Siren (1991)

reported that although most parents supported the goal of

bilingual development, there were differences of opinion

among parents regarding when this goal of bilingualism

should be achieved. According to Soto (1993), parents of

academically high-achieving Puerto Rican immigrant chil-

dren in kindergarten through second grade strongly believed

in developing a foundation in Spanish first while gradually

introducing English to their children. Parents of children

who were lower achievers also valued Spanish, but they ex-

pressed a preference for simultaneous learning in both lan-

guages and were much more ambivalent about the

developmental progression of first- and second-language

learning. In her study of Korean immigrant families in

Canada, Koh (2000) similarly found that parents who en-

rolled their children in bilingual preschools expressed a

304

Early Childhood Education

strong preference for their children building a strong foun-

dation in Korean before learning English. Accordingly, they

tended to provide exclusive Korean language environments

at home. In contrast, Korean immigrants who enrolled their

children in English-speaking preschools believed that chil-

dren at an early age could acquire two languages naturally

and actively supported this scenario by their choice of

preschool setting and the nature of home literacy activities.

Thus, a major question among immigrant parents of young

children concerns the most appropriate balance between

developing fluency in both their native language and the ma-

jority language. Parental attitudes influence language prac-

tices and interaction patterns at home and parents’ selection

of a particular preschool program. 

There is general agreement among researchers that a

child’s success in learning both the native language and the

majority-culture language is more dependent on the nature of

the home and preschool learning environments and less

dependent on the child’s age per se (Arnberg, 1987; Schiff-

Myers, 1992). In other words, minority children’s second-

language learning in the early years is not always a problem

if the home languages and literacy are valued and encouraged

in the home, preschool, and community. Nevertheless, the

appropriate balance between developing the native language

and the majority language during the early school years is a

critical issue about which language minority parents and

ECE practitioners need to have more solid theoretical and

empirical bases. 

Another hotly debated issue surrounds the instructional

use of the two languages in minority children’s early school-

ing (Garcia, 1993). At one end of this debate are proponents

of native or bilingual language instruction who recommend

learning of the native language prior to the introduction of an

English curriculum (transitional or maintenance bilingual ed-

ucation). In this approach it is suggested that “competencies

in the native language, particularly as related to academic

learning, provide important cognitive and social bases for

second-language and academic learning” (Garcia, 1973,

p. 379). The other end of this debate recommends immersion

to the English curriculum from the very start of the students’

schooling experience with the minimal use of the native lan-

guage (English immersion education). Perhaps the most fa-

miliar examples of this debate are results on bilingual or

native-language ECE classrooms for Spanish speakers in the

United States (see Bilingual Research Journal, 1992). How-

ever, this issue could extend to a wide variety of language-

minority groups who have a choice of native or bilingual

language instruction in their early years. Evaluation of im-

mersion, native, or bilingual programs includes political and

ideological as well as methodological and technical debates.

However, a number of researchers have increasingly noted a

positive outcome in the language and cognitive development

for the children attending effective bilingual or native lan-

guage classrooms (Campos, 1995; Paul & Jarvis, 1992; Ro-

driguez, Diaz, Duran, & Espinosa, 1995). 

The language of instruction is but one of many factors that

can determine the outcomes of learning in a specific early ed-

ucation program. These other factors could include teacher

training, classroom interactions, the nature of peer relations,

the curriculum that is used, parent involvement, or program

philosophies that contextualize the teaching and learning in

the programs. Further study of language practices in the early

schooling of language-minority children should focus on

more than the language of instruction alone and should in-

clude such ecological factors of the programs. The issue of

minority students’ early education should also be understood

not only in the classroom or school but also in a broader so-

cietal context where the children are learning the native and

majority language (Garcia, 1993; Wong Fillmore, 1991).

The Role of Home Culture in Early Childhood Education 

In the past, the language and culture that minority families

and children brought from their home into new environment

were considered to be deficiencies (Collins, 1988). Defi-

ciency theory attributed the academic failure of children from

certain ethnic groups to culturally determined socialization

practices in the home. Much recent and current research has

helped to refute this cultural deficiency model and has begun

to contribute to our understanding of cultural differences

between the school and the minority students. The cultural

differences—or discontinuities—position, supported by a

number of well-documented ethnographic studies, suggests

that a major source of children’s education failure lies in the

culture clash between home and school (e.g., Delgado-Gaitan

& Trueba, 1991; Garcia, 1988; Heath, 1983). 

Others have pointed out that deficit-difference models

have oversimplified the problem of minority achievement

by generalizing and perhaps overemphasizing home-school

discontinuities (Goldenberg, Reese, & Gallmore, 1992;

Weisner, Gallimore, & Jordan, 1993). Although home-school

discontinuities must be recognized and accommodated

appropriately in the school, not all cultural discontinuities

between minority families and school are negative (Delgado-

Gaitan & Truba, 1991; Schmidt, 1998; Volk, 1997; Weisner

et al., 1993). Thus, it is necessary to look at some new and

emerging data that suggest certain positive outcomes of some

discontinuities. Weisner et al. (1993) gave an example of how

educators identified cultural differences between school and

Hawaiian families and then incorporated the family’s teaching-

Diversity in Early Childhood Education: Individual Exceptionality and Cultural Pluralism

305

learning style from the home culture into their classroom

practices:

Sibcare is a ubiquitous aspect of Hawaiian child life; it reinforces

habits of attending and orienting to siblings and other children

rather than to adults. These habits can be generalized to the class-

room by providing opportunities for peer teaching and learning.

In a traditional classroom, these culture-based habits lead to

problems; in classrooms using peer teaching, they produce better

achievement. (p. 62)

Similarly, the Kamelahama Early Education Program

(KEEP) in Hawaii showed that incorporating features of the

home culture into reading lessons in primary classrooms

resulted in an increase of the children’s reading achievement

scores (Grant, 1995). Instead of mainstream classroom dis-

cussions of stories, discussions were adjusted to incorporate

the Hawaiian storytelling tradition, which involves a high

proportion of turn taking and cooperative production of re-

sponses (Au, 1997; Au & Carroll, 1997). Studies such as

these showed that minority home cultures and values must be

factored into children’s educational plans. Modifying old ap-

proaches and developing new conceptual insights and educa-

tional practices can help minority language children succeed

in school. 

The Socialization and Resocialization of Young

Minority Children

Socialization is a means by which patterns of behavior, atti-

tudes, values, and beliefs are transmitted to children from

families, schools, peers, the media, and other influences

(Garcia, 1993). During the early childhood years, family is

essentially the major socialization source for a child. After

the child enters early education programs, both the family

and the school are primary socialization sources. The transi-

tion from home to early schooling marks a critical socializa-

tion period for all children, and perhaps more so for culturally

and linguistically diverse children whose languages and ways

of life are different from those of the mainstream (Kagan &

Garcia, 1991; Villarruel, Imig, Kostelnik, 1995).

Families from diverse ethnic backgrounds may have dif-

ferent values, goals, and practices concerning what they

consider important early experiences for children. These

variations can reflect differences in their cultural belief sys-

tems about the status and role of children in society and their

perceptions of how children learn (Goodnow, 1988). As an

example, the traditional culture and socialization of northeast

Asian countries are deeply rooted in Confucian philosophy,

which strongly emphasizes interdependence from parents,

group harmony, close family ties, and respect to adults. Chil-

dren raised in this kind of cultural consciousness are not en-

couraged to initiate conversations with adults or to compete

verbally with others publicly. These precise characteristics

of socialization, however, are inconsistent with those of

Western culture, which tend to emphasize the development of

self-expression, autonomous choice, and independent indi-

viduals (Choi, Kim, & Choi, 1993). When the cultural cli-

mate of the home differs significantly from that of school and

society at large, the child may be caught in the middle of

home-school value conflict. 

What happens if ECE programs of these children do not

understand the values and child developmental goals behind

cultural differences and seek to resocialize the children to a

new set of values? Clearly, an appropriate function of educa-

tion is socialization, and it is not unrealistic to expect that

older children will accommodate such norms. However, ask-

ing very young children to be resocialized, just as formative

socialization is taking place, unduly burdens them (Kagan &

Garcia, 1991). The attempt to fit in to the socialization-

resocialization conundrum can result in confusion within the

child and the rejection of the home culture and language. This

in turn often creates a deep emotional gap between the child

and the family and in some cases could lead to emotional or

learning problems for the child (Delgado-Gaitan & Trueba,

1991; Kagan & Garcia, 1991). In fact, reports of Asian im-

migrants in North America have indicated a significant

challenge in their children’s socialization and serious com-

munication problems with their children at home (Kim &

Choi, 1994; Lee & Lehmann, 1986; “There is no Utopia,”

1999). Pettingill and Rohner (1985), who compared

children’s perception of parenting among Korean, Korean

Canadian, and Korean American samples, found that per-

ceived parental control was correlated with high parental

warmth and low neglect, and slightly with parental hostility

and rejection in the Korean sample. On the other hand, for the

Korean Canadian and Korean American children, parental

control was perceived as low warmth and high hostility,

neglect, and rejection. This study showed that parental

control—a positive feature of the parent-child relationship

in Korea—was transformed into a negative feature for the

children of Korean immigrants in North America. 

Although there are always individual variations within the

cultural groups, it is important to understand that the social-

ization characteristics of one cultural group are governed

by its cultural values and beliefs and can be significantly

different from those of another. Schools need to understand

that minority families’ cross-cultural adjustments can be a

difficult and complex process, so schools should provide

306

Early Childhood Education

learning environments that can mediate the adjustment and

develop a healthy sense of self.

Closing Thoughts on Language, Culture, and Immigration 

With so many children from diverse language and cultural

groups in early childhood programs, it has become an increas-

ingly important challenge to appreciate the significance of the

family’s language and culture and to move from appreciation

to action on the part of early childhood professionals. A num-

ber of key issues regarding language, culture, and the educa-

tion of young immigrant children must remain high priorities

for both early childhood educators and researchers.

First, there is concern with the possibility of subtractive

bilingualism, that is, losing proficiency in the child’s first lan-

guage. Supporting the child’s native language at an early age

has been strongly encouraged for the children’s academic

success, bilingual proficiency, family relations, and a healthy

sense of self. ECE programs for minority children must en-

courage and appreciate the language skills and cultural val-

ues that these children bring from their home, so that they

neither directly nor indirectly stop the children’s native lan-

guage and cultural development.

Parents of minority preschoolers are challenged to decide

when and how to provide the relative balance between the na-

tive and second languages for their children, and they need

more information and support. Studies of the impact of fam-

ily culture on children’s learning have showed that identify-

ing cultural differences between the school and the families,

and incorporating the information into classroom practices,

resulted in better academic achievement. 

For the children of minority groups, parenting values and

practices at home may be very different from what educators

expect, and socialization experiences may be unique and

complex as children often interact in multiple linguistic and

cultural groups. Thus, ECE professionals are expected to

look at children within the context of their family and culture.

The potential conflicts and confusion that these families and

their children might experience in their cross-cultural adjust-

ment must be acknowledged, understood, and overcome. 

Child Temperament and Early Childhood Education

I didn’t get any information about temperament in my training.

That community talk was when I first learned about Thomas and

Chess’s study, you know, and about temperament. I didn’t learn

that in my early childhood training. That’s terrible, right?

(“Corinne,” cited in Andersen & McDevitt, 2000, p. 14)

The early childhood special educator just quoted reported

that she had to remove her 3-year-old son from a day care

setting in which he was in constant conflict with teachers and

peers. She was on a desperate search for caregivers who were

knowledgeable and skilled in working with challenging be-

havior. She was also seeking emotional support and practical

suggestions for herself from early intervention professionals.

This parent had learned from medical and mental health spe-

cialists that her child was neurologically intact but that his in-

tensity, slowness to adapt, negative mood, high activity level,

and short attention span were aspects of his temperament that

were colliding with the expectations of his parents and teach-

ers. However, her attempts to impart this well-informed as-

sessment of the basis of her son’s behavior fell on deaf ears in

her neighborhood day care center. The skepticism she encoun-

tered left her feeling judged and blamed, and her son was la-

beled “disturbed” and “troublesome.” Yet she herself could

not blame the teachers, whose training, like her own, had in-

cluded so little attention to the extensive research that now

exists on child temperament (Andersen & McDevitt, 2000).

Although her experience in encountering ignorance of tem-

perament is tragically commonly reported (Andersen, 1994),

it is also true that ECE professionals have been among the

most enthusiastic supporters of the concept. Many have ac-

knowledged that the topic needs more attention in personnel

preparation and as a variable that affects the functioning of

children in group settings (Andersen, 1990; Soderman, 1985).

The History of Temperament Research 

The idea of temperament has a long history, dating back at

least as far Hippocrates (Rutter, 1982). However, after the

hereditarian views of personality that held sway in the nine-

teenth century were rejected, by the middle of the twentieth

century children’s traits were considered either to be all

learned or to be projections of their parents’ often-distorted

perceptions. These psychodynamic and social-learning theo-

ries of children’s individual differences were first systemati-

cally challenged by the formulation and investigation of the

construct of temperament by the American psychiatrists

Stella Chess and Alexander Thomas. The attribution of all

differences in children, including infants, to differences in

parental (usually maternal) handling or to the projection of

parental personality characteristics, ran counter to their own

personal and professional experiences (Chess & Thomas,

1987). They knew that they could not refute these ideas on

the basis of their opinions alone. The task called for a major

research enterprise. Their New York Longitudinal Study

(NYLS) was initiated in 1956 and followed 133 children

from early infancy to adult life. This turned out to be a land-

mark study, and these two American psychiatrists paved the

way for a veritable revolution in our understanding of chil-