Studies in the Psychology of Language and Communication. Warszawa: Matrix 2010!"#"$%"&'()*+,-#.&'.$%#./0
1&2-$34-3.&5#"6*.
!"#$%&'(#$)*+",-$./0'“… begin where children are and build on
what they know and bring.”(Goodwin, 2002: 167)

7$%#"+4,%)"$
This study reports on a Toronto-wide language investigation of children (aged18 months to 5 years) enrolled in childcare. It represents an extension of an earlier study (Chumak-Horbatsch, 2008) of dual language behaviors of one group of
immigrant children attending a childcare centre, housed on a Toronto University
campus. Preparatory steps in this study revealed that immigrant children were avery real presence in the childcare centre – over one half of the total enrollment.
Staff who worked in the centre reported the importance of sensitivity to the language needs of immigrant children. They adopted a number of strategies, such asserving as English-language models and using words in home languages to help
these children adjust to their new environment.
This study led the author to speculate about the linguistic composition of other
Toronto childcare centres and about extant pedagogical practice as it relates toimmigrant children. This speculation generated the following two questions that
directed the Toronto-wide study reported here:(i) What is the linguistic composition of Toronto childcare centres?
(ii) How can pedagogical practice, as it relates to immigrant children be characterized?
Address for correspondence: Roma Chumak-Horbatsch, Ryerson University, School of Early Childhood
Education, 350 Victoria Street, Toronto, Ontario, M5B 2K3, Canada. E-mail: rchumak@ryerson.ca

290!"#$%&'(#$)*+",-$./0'8-%)"$-*.&At the time of the study, the linguistic composition of Toronto’s childcare centre population remained undocumented. Unlike the systematic documentation ofchildren’s linguistic background conducted by the two large Toronto school boards,
language data on children attending childcare was sporadic and irregular acrosscentres. Yet documentation of the linguistic composition of childcare centres incities with large immigrant populations is important for staff and policy makers.
Ongoing language documentation would help staff understand the language pulseof their centres, provide particulars of minority language representation, such as
frequency and concentration, across and within childcare centres and reveal patterns, changes and trends of children’s home languages. This information is vitalfor pedagogical practice adjustment, for planning, staffing and building community partnerships. Finally, language data, would serve as a reminder to staff of theheterogeneity of their working environment and the importance of establishinga multilingual and multi-literate environment where young children make use of
their entire range of language resources for learning (Kenner, 2000:88). Municipal
policy makers who are made aware of the extent and nature of linguistic diversity
will make efforts to standardize language documentation across childcare centres
and will ensure that necessary resources are in place to help staff meet immigrantchildren’s language needs.
The purpose of the Toronto study, then, is two-fold. Firstly, it is intended tofill the gap described above and to provide a linguistic map of Toronto’s childcare
population. The second goal is to document pedagogical practice adopted by staff
in their work with immigrant children.
9.6$)%)"$/
A number of terms used throughout the paper are defined and clarified here.
Immigrant children are born in Canada or outside of Canada to immigrantparents. These children are raised in homes where a minority language (or languages) is spoken. They are in the early stages of their home language acquisition:
the younger ones (10 to 18 mos.) are in the single-word stage and the toddlers(18 mos. to 2 ½ yrs.) are communicating using two-word utterances, while older
children (preschoolers, 2 ½ to 3 years and kindergarteners, 4 and 5 years) are using
combinatorial speech. Immigrant children arrive in childcare centres with little
or no understanding of English. In many cases, the parents of these children have
limited English proficiency.
English Language Learners (or ELLs) is a term used in Ontario Ministry of
Education (2007) documents and in numerous research studies to describe kindergarten and school-aged children (born in Canada or outside of Canada) who speak
a minority language in the home. ELLs attend English language school where they
are learning English as a second language.

1","2."%&'3450$,6%&62.,6/291

L1 refers to the first (or home) language a child is acquiring and L2 refers to asecond language. In most cases immigrant children’s L2 is English, which is also
referred to as the host language. In Canada, a language other than English or Frenchis considered a minority language.
Early Childhood Educators (hereafter ECEds) are qualified and trained professionals (holding a 2-year diploma or a 4-year degree in Early Childhood Education)
who are responsible for all aspects of program planning, preparation and delivery
and who are registered with the CECE (College of Early Childhood Educators), a
professional, self-regulatory provincial organization.
The term childcare staff (or staff) refers to ECEds, trained assistants and untrained employees who work directly with children in the childcare centre. Following the Canadian Oxford Dictionary (2004), staff is used as a singular collective
noun to refer to the employees of a single childcare centre and in the plural whenreferring to employees of more than one centre.
Pedagogical practice refers to strategies, procedures and/or methodologies
adopted by childcare staff in supporting and guiding immigrant children.

!(.&!"#"$%"&:%4+;
The Toronto study is presented in 5 sections. In the first section a brief
description of Toronto’s diverse visage is provided. A two-part language documentation that includes a mapping of children’s home languages and a list oflanguages known and used by childcare staff is presented in Section 2. Section 3
reports on working with immigrant children in the childcare context. The fourth
section includes a discussion of the findings. A conclusion is presented in the
final section.
<=&!"#"$%"0&')%;&">&)??)3#-$%/
With a population of over 2 million inhabitants, Toronto is one of the world’s
most culturally and linguistically diverse cities. The motto Diversity Our Strength
describes Toronto’s attention to and celebration of the differences of newcomers
who come to the Canadian city to live, work and raise families. Toronto can be
described as a language mosaic where over 140 languages and dialects can beheard. In 2006, over 30% of Torontonians spoke a language other than English or
French at home, while 47% had a mother tongue other than English or French(Canada Census, 2006). In 2004, the United Nations Development Program ranked
Toronto second, behind Miami, in its List of World Cities with the Largest Percentage of Foreign-born Population. Even though Miami had the higher foreign-born
population (mostly Hispanic and Haitian), Toronto’s foreign-born population issignificantly more diverse. More information about diversity in Toronto can befound at: http://www.toronto.ca/toronto_facts/diversity.htm

292!"#$%&'(#$)*+",-$./0'@=&!A"BC-#%&*-$34-3.&+",4?.$%-%)"$!"#$%"$&'()*%+&#,",-)#.'/0-1(2&#34'5)+&'!"#$%"$&4
A Questionnaire was forwarded electronically to the Supervisors of 800 Toronto
childcare centres (licensed by the Ontario Ministry of Children and Youth Services)that provide childcare services for some combination of the following four age
groups: infants (birth to 18 mos.), toddlers (18 mos. to 2 ½ yrs.), preschoolers (2 ½ to
3 yrs.) and kindergarteners (4 and 5 yrs). Supervisors were asked to download anddistribute the Questionnaire and send it home with all children. The Questionnaire
included only one question: What language or languages are used in your home?
and included a 14-option checklist. All reported home languages were analyzed
statistically.
It is acknowledged here that the English-language Questionnaire was biased
towards those parents who are speakers of English, who have a workable knowledgeof English and parents who have a higher level of education and understand how
to complete a Questionnaire. These parents were more likely than parents withlimited proficiency in English, to take the time to complete the Questionnaire andto return it to their child’s childcare centre.
Findings
Of the 800 childcare centres contacted, 190 (24%) returned completed Questionnaires. Questionnaire returns across childcare centres ranged from 1 to 96 andrepresented 4,110 children. While home language use of non-participating children
remains unknown, it can be said with some certainty that the present response rate
provides a representative, cross-sectional sample of language use in the childcare
population of Toronto.
Language categories
Four categories of home language use emerged from parental Questionnaire
responses: (a) English only, (b) French, (c) Minority languages and (d) Other.
Figure 1 shows that English only was reported most often as the home language:
48% of responses. The French category included both French only and French andEnglish and totaled 7%. Minority languages totaled 43% and included the following
four language options: (i) Minority Language Only: 10%; (ii) Minority Language
and English: 32.6%; (iii) Minority Language and French: 0.2%; and (iv) Minority
Language and Other: 0.5%. The final category, Other, with a total of 2% included
Aboriginal Only, Aboriginal and English, Aboriginal and Other, American Sign
Language (ASL) Only and ASL and Other.
Childcare centre Supervisors explained that the Minority Language Only option
was most often reported by newcomers and/or recent immigrants, while immigrantparents who were more proficient in English and whose Canadian residency was

1","2."%&'3450$,6%&62.,6/293

Fugure 1. Children’s home languages (N = 4011)

longer than 3 years, reported the Minority Language and English option. Minority Language and Other often (but not always) included the use of two or moreminority languages in the home.
Reported minority languages
Questionnaire responses revealed a total of 129 different minority homelanguages. Of these, 21 were categorized as unclear, due (most likely) to a misunderstanding of the home language options provided in the Questionnaire. These
responses, although included in the minority language total, did not name the homelanguage, but rather reported the country of origin, as in Tunisia, or the name of avillage, as in Achanta (located in the Godavari river basin, Andhra Pradesh, India).
Also included in the unclear minority language category were responses such as
native, our own or heritage, and names which could not be confirmed with The
Compendium of the World’s Languages (Campbell, 2000).
Frequency of reported minority languages
Of the 129 different minority home languages, two were reported most often:
Chinese (363 times), and Spanish (126 times). Five varieties of Chinese (Mandarin,
Cantonese, Shanghainese, Hakka and Fujian) were reported and, in some cases,
parents noted Chinese without variety specification. Figure 2 (which does notinclude the Chinese and Spanish totals) shows that in general, minority languages
were widely distributed. One-time reporting was common, where over half (54%)
of minority languages were reported by only one family. Taken together, the first294!"#$%&'(#$)*+",-$./0'

Fugure 2. Frequency of minority languages

two bars of Figure 2 show that the majority (77%) of minority languages werereported between 1 and 10 times. The remaining minority languages (23%) had areporting rate of 11 to 50.
Comparison of reported minority languages
A comparison of the minority home languages reported in the present study
with non-official language data from Canada Census (2006) shows that the minority home language picture presented here is reflective of home language use (notto be confused with mother tongue) across major Canadian Census Metropolitan
Areas1 (hereafter CMAs). Table 2 shows the five most frequently reported minority home languages for the Toronto study and for 4 CMAs: Toronto, Edmonton,
Vancouver and Montreal.
Noteworthy is the fact that the most frequently reported language (Chinese)
appears in 4 of the above lists: in the Toronto study and in 3 CMAs: Toronto, Edmonton and Vancouver. Not surprisingly, the closest match (of 3 languages: Chinese,
Spanish and Portuguese) appears between home languages reported in the Toronto
study and in the CMA: Toronto.
1#A Census Metropolitan area is defined as a very large urban area (known as the urban core) together
with adjacent urban and rural areas that have a high degree of social and economic integration with theurban core. A CMA has an urban core population of at least 100,000.

1","2."%&'3450$,6%&62.,6/295

Table 1. Most frequently reported home minority languages (CMA = Census Metropolitan
Area)
Toronto study
ChineseSpanishTamil
Portuguese
ArabicCanada Census 2006: Language Data
CMA: Toronto CMA: Edmonton CMA: Vancouver CMA: Montreal
ChineseChineseChinese
ItalianItalianGermanPunjabi
ArabicPortuguese
Tagalog
Tagalog
SpanishTagalog
UkrainianGermanCreoles
SpanishArabic
Hindi
Greek

Distribution of minority home languages across Toronto childcare centres
Minority home language use was reported in all but 4 of the 190 childcare centres that returned parental Questionnaires. Parents whose children were enrolled
in these 4 centres reported that English only was used in the home. Figure 3 shows
the significant presence of minority home languages in 186 Toronto childcare centres. The first two bars of Figure 3 show that between 1 and 10 minority languages
were present in most (88%) centres while a higher number of minority languages(between 11 and 22) was reported in a small number (12%) of centres.

Fugure 3. Distribution of minority languages across childcare centres

296!"#$%&'(#$)*+",-$./0'

Fugure 4. Ten most frequently reported minority languages known and used by staff

Summary: Children’s home languages
An important finding that emerged from Questionnaire responses was thatchildren who spoke minority languages in the home comprised approximately halfof the Toronto childcare population. The 129 different minority home languages
were widely reported and distributed across childcare centres. In the majority ofcentres, up to 10 minority languages were reported while larger numbers of minority
languages were present in fewer centres. Finally, the minority home language mapof Toronto childcare centres presented here is reflective of the minority language
presence in the CMA: Toronto, and also, to a lesser degree in other Canadian CMAs.
!"#$%"$&'()*%+&#,",-)#.'6,"77'1"#$%"$&4
The Supervisors of 800 Toronto childcare centres that provide childcare services
for children between the ages of 18 months and 5 years, were asked to submit(electronically) a Staff Language List, a record of languages (in addition to English)
known and used by staff who work directly with children. Language Lists included
a language count only and did not include the number of speakers for each of thelanguages reported.
Findings
Of the 800 centres contacted, 225 Supervisors submitted Staff Language Lists.
The total number of staff who work directly with children in these centres was

1","2."%&'3450$,6%&62.,6/297

Table 2. Children and Staff: Ten most frequently reported minority languages across childcare centres
Children’s home languages
1. Chinese
2. Spanish
3. Tamil
4. Portuguese
5. Arabic
6. Italian
7. Russian
8. Tagalog
9. Hindi
10. Farsi

Staff languages
1. Chinese
2. Spanish
3. Italian
4. Portuguese
5. Greek
6. Urdu7. Hindi
8. Tamil
9. Polish
10. Arabic

2,822. Sixty-three different minority languages were reported in the Staff Language
Lists and 4 language categories were noted: Minority languages, French, English
only, and American Sign Language. Figure 4 shows that, overall, childcare staff
were speakers of one or more minority languages. Not surprisingly, French wasreported mostly (but not exclusively) in centres with a French-English bilingual
program. Reports of English-only staff and knowledge and use of American Sign
Language were negligible. Figure 5 shows the 10 most frequently reported minority
languages known and used by childcare staff.
Linguistic match-linguistic mismatch
Home-Staff minority languages across childcare centres
Linguistic match is defined here as a situation where childcare staff and immigrant children share the same minority language or languages. An example oflinguistic match would be a Mandarin-speaking staff member working in a centre
with a child (or children) for whom Mandarin is his/her/their home language.
Linguistic mismatch is the reverse - where staff and children are speakers of different minority languages. A Portuguese-speaking child, for example, with an
Urdu-speaking staff member would be in a linguistic mismatch situation.
Table 2 shows that across centres, there was a significant match between themost frequently reported (children’s) home and staff minority languages. Seven of
the 10 languages (shown in bold) in each list were the same. Chinese and Spanish
were the two most frequently reported minority languages for both children andstaff, while Portuguese was listed in fourth place in both lists. Tamil, Arabic, Italian,and Hindi were noted in both lists, though not in the same order.

!"#$%&'(#$)*+",-$./0'

298

Table 3. Home-Staff Linguistic match – Linguistic mismatch
Number of childcare centres
Linguistic match
1 minority language
2 minority languages
3-6-minority languages
Linguistic mismatch

159
73%
35%
19%
18%
27%

Home-staff language mismatch (shown in italics) was noted in 3 of the minority
languages. Minority languages included in the home language but not in the staff
list included Russian, Tagalog and Farsi, while those known and used by staff but
not by children, included Greek, Urdu and Polish.
Linguistic match – linguistic mismatch
Home – Staff minority languages within childcare centres
A look at parental Questionnaire responses and Staff Language Lists from thesame childcare centres allowed for a within-centre child-staff language comparison.
Table 3 shows that in the majority (73%) of these centres, there was some degree of
linguistic match between children and staff. A linguistic match of one was notedmost often, and a 2 to 6 language match was also reported. Linguistic mismatch wasnoted in just over one quarter (27%) of childcare centres, where minority languages
known and used by staff were different than children’s home languages.
The importance of home-staff linguistic match
The linguistic match found in the Toronto study stands in contrast to findings
from two earlier studies (Chang, 1993; Bernhard, Lefebvre, Chud & Lange, 1996)
that investigated language match between young children and childcare staff. Even
though the California study (Chang, 1996) found a one-language (Spanish) match,where over half of the staff were speakers of Spanish, match with other minority
languages (such as Tagalog, Chinese, Vietnamese and Korean) was limited. The
Bernhard et al (1996) study, which explored linguistic match in 77 childcare centres
in 3 large Canadian urban areas (Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal), found that
although staff were speakers of a variety of languages, the majority of minority
language children (72%) were in linguistically mismatched situations, where staff
and children were speakers of different minority languages.
Both studies conclude that in many (but not all) cases, linguistic mismatch creates difficult situations for immigrant children, affects future school performance,
diminishes support for home languages, leads to loss of home languages and makes

1","2."%&'3450$,6%&62.,6/299

communication with parents difficult. To overcome the widespread linguistic
mismatch, Bernhard et al (1996) stress the importance of increasing bilingual andbicultural staff in childcare centres.
The benefits of linguistic match can be found in a recent US policy framework(Matthews, 2008), which outlines the needs of babies and toddlers in childcare. Oneof the key principles in this document focuses on the importance of having childcare
staff reflect children’s home cultures and languages. Familiarity with children’sculture and the ability to communicate in children’s home languages, they argue,
establishes a continuity between the home and the childcare centre, provides anemotionally secure environment for the children, allows for effective communication with immigrant parents, serves to reinforce the importance of home languages
and allows for staff sharing of cultural and linguistic behaviors and practices, suchas child rearing, home literacy and culturally distinct socialization patterns.
Two additional benefits of linguistic match are suggested here. When staff know
and use children’s home languages, they will establish a multilingual and multiliterate environment where home languages are validated, promoted and used inmeaningful ways. In such environments, minority language-speaking staff movebeyond token acknowledgment of home languages, become language role models
for immigrant children and provide the opportunity for all children to witness andappreciate linguistic diversity.
Summary: Staff languages
To summarize, then, immigrant children attending Toronto childcare centres
were cared for by minority-language-speaking staff. In the majority of centres
there was a match between home and staff minority languages. The question thatemerges from this finding is: To what extent does staff make use of their linguistic
resources? This question will be addressed in the next section.
D=&E"#F)$3&A)%(&)??)3#-$%&,()*+#.$In this section, pedagogical practice adopted by childcare staff, as reported bychildcare centre Supervisors, is presented. Supervisors were invited to report (via
an online Survey) on 3 aspects of pedagogical practice as it relates to immigrantchildren: level of preparedness, strategies and challenges. Responses were received
from 225 centres with a total of 2,822 staff members. Findings are summarized andcompared with two earlier studies of pedagogical practice. Comments provided bychildcare centre Supervisors appear in italics.
Two limitations of electronic surveys are acknowledged here. The first limitation relates to the use of multiple-choice questions whose predetermined responses
leave no room for comments and/or additional information. The second limitation
concerns the accuracy and comprehensiveness of indirect reporting where childcare
centre Supervisors reported on behalf of centre staff.

300!"#$%&'(#$)*+",-$./0'

82&9"2&(#&44',)':)2;':-,0'-++-$2"#,'*0-1(2&#Supervisors reported that overall, staff were ready to work with immigrantchildren. The total number of responses for the categories, well prepared, very well
prepared and somewhat prepared, were quite similar (between 28% and 34%), while
reports of the not at all prepared category were negligible.
6,2",&$-&4'"()9,&('-#':)2;-#$':-,0'-++-$2"#,'*0-1(2&#Supervisors reported that the goal of working with immigrant children was tohelp them quickly adjust socially and linguistically. Strategies adopted by staff intheir work with immigrant children were grouped into three categories: transition,
cultural and home language.
<2"#4-,-)#'4,2",&$-&4Transition strategies were reported most often and were described as a time
for newly arrived immigrant children to adjust to the new environment and to thehost language. The focus of transition strategies was to help immigrant language
children learn English in a short time. For example, picture symbols of routines(e.g. bathroom, hand-washing, number of children at stations) were displayed
throughout the centre. Staff often accompanied these pictures with gestures andsimple verbal instructions to help immigrant children become familiar with boththe centre routines and the English words used to describe them. In addition to this,childcare staff directly taught English words and phrases to immigrant children.
Another widely reported transition strategy was to pair immigrant children withoutgoing English-speaking children. There were also reports about the importanceof teaching them English and discouraging the use of home languages in the centre.
For example children from similar language backgrounds were discouraged fromjoining the same playgroups.
/%1,%2"1'4,2",&$-&4
Acknowledgement and recognition of immigrant children’s home cultures
were categorized as cultural strategies. For example, Supervisors reported that
culturally relevant materials and familiar supports, such as dolls in ethnic costumes, photographs of children in their ethnic dress and music from different
cultures were included in childcare centres. Another cultural strategy was toinvite immigrant parents to the centre to celebrate ethnic holidays and attend
special events.
5)+&'1"#$%"$&'4,2",&$-&4
A two-part home language strategy was identified and included the following:
acknowledgment of home languages, and using home languages in the childcare
centre program.

1","2."%&'3450$,6%&62.,6/

30110)2"345675#52.%"8%'"#5%4$27($75/'
All childcare centre staff reported that they acknowledge immigrant children’s
home languages. The following verbs were reported by Supervisors to describe
home language recognition:
accept, accommodate, applaud, appreciate, assist, celebrate, embrace, encourage, enhance,
enrich, foster, help, honor, nourish, nurture, promote, respect, support, sustain,
value.
9/5%"8%:;%)5<%3",6/%$26%=',$/5/
The most widely reported home language strategy was learning key words
and phrases (such as tired, come with me, thank you, sleep, bathroom) in children’s
home languages. Supervisors reported that immigrant parents are asked to provide
these words (together with pronunciation aids) when they register their children inchildcare. Other home language strategies included making labels (with parental
assistance) for centre objects in home languages, learning simple songs in children’
home languages and pairing immigrant children with staff members who speak thesame languages. Also, parents were invited into the centre to read dual language
books to children. Finally, some centres included interpreters in meetings withimmigrant parents.
/0"11&#$&4'-#':)2;-#$':-,0'-++-$2"#,'*0-1(2&#Childcare centre Supervisors reported 3 challenges staff face in their work withimmigrant children: communication, needs of immigrant children and programming.
/)++%#-*",-)#
Difficulty in communicating with immigrant parents and grandparents, due
to language barriers, was reported most frequently. Resources to help with thischallenge, for example on-site interpreters and translations of newsletters were
not used due to prohibitive cost.
Communicating with new arrivals who do not understand or speak English
was described as an ongoing concern where staff were often unsure whether immigrant children understood what was being said to them. Childcare staff wereconcerned about comforting immigrant children during separation from parents
and/or grandparents.
=&&(4')7'-++-$2"#,'*0-1(2&#For childcare staff, the needs of immigrant children were two-fold: learning
English and making friends. Meeting these interrelated needs was reported as
challenging. The urgency of social and language integration and assimilation

302!"#$%&'(#$)*+",-$./0'

of immigrant children into the social life of the centre was widely reported.
Staff also reported that immigrant children need help in making friends since
English-speaking children were not always willing to interact with their newly
arrived peers.
82)$2"++-#$
Childcare staff reported that it was difficult to find the time to learn about
the cultures, languages, customs and practices of the many immigrant children in
their centres. Without this information, it was difficult to include a cultural piece
into their busy programs.
In sum, Supervisors reported that childcare staff were ready to work with immigrant children. Their transition strategy had a clear L2 focus where the social
and linguistic adjustment of immigrant children was viewed in terms of strategic
movement towards English. Token acknowledgment of home languages was widespread. A hasty shift to L2 appeared to be the underlying purpose of using L1 words
and phrases in interactions with immigrant children. Communication with newly
arrived immigrant children and their parents was reported as problematic. Finally,
the display of cultural artifacts in childcare centres was reported as a welcoming
strategy and that time limitations did not allow childcare staff to include a culturalcomponent in their programs.
In response to the question about staff linguistic resources, it is clear that staff
do not use their minority languages to interact with immigrant children and parents.
The pairing strategy (of children and staff who share the same home languages),
reported only once, did not include any mention of actual language use. The strong
linguistic match between immigrant children and staff found in the Toronto study
and presented in Table 2, then, remained unutilized.
82-)2'4,%(-&4
The Pacini-Ketchbaw (2007) study investigated pedagogical practice of one
group of ECEds working with ELLs in Victoria and Vancouver, two Canadian cities
with large immigrant populations. In this study, preparedness for working withyoung immigrant children was described as follows: We are sort of learning as wego along (p. 229). Like the Toronto study, strategies adopted by these ECEds wereL2 focused and attention to home languages was absent: … immigrant children
require more work and attention from the educators because of … English development (p. 227-228). Working with new arrivals was described as a time-consuming
task requiring sensitivity. The need for flexibility, inclusion, tolerance and acceptance was also reported. The study concludes with two recommendations to assist
ECEds in their work with immigrant children: (a) a longer adjustment period thatwould allow immigrant children and their families … to express their own needs,
provide children with a positive environment, allow children a gradual transition

1","2."%&'3450$,6%&62.,6/303

to childcare routines, and expose other children to the differences that immigrantfamilies bring to the settings, and (b), the need to provide extra support staff incentres with high numbers of immigrant children.
A study conducted in North Carolina (Hardin, B., Lower, J., Robinson Smallwood, G., Chakravarthi, S., Li, L. & Jordan, C., 2010), a US state which experienced
a 274% increase in the foreign-born population between 1990 and 2000, reports thateven though a longstanding recognition of … ethnic, cultural and linguistic diversity
is in place among most American ECEds, they too often lack the necessary tools
and training and are not adequately prepared to … meet the needs of ELL children
and their families effectively (p.20). To address this professional training issue,
the authors developed Teachers, Families and Communities or TFC, a model of …
high quality professional development focused on improving services for ELLs andtheir families. The Survey of Current Practices was one part of the TFC model that
focused on strategies adopted by ECEds in their work with ELLs.
Strategies adopted by North Carolina ECEds were characterized by an L2
focus and token attention to children’s home languages. Staff were anxious fortheir ELLs to master English: … they really want them to learn English (p. 31) andreported difficulty in working with children and parents who had limited English
proficiency: … It’s frustrating on my part because I can’t get them to understandwhat I’m saying (p.31). Token acknowledgment of home languages was reported,for example, … to support and preserve home language usage (p. 10) and, as in theToronto study, L1 words and phrases were used as a stepping stone to children’s
L2 learning. Upon completion of the TFC model, ECEds decided to adopt two newstrategies: (a) give additional attention to the physical space or preparing moreculturally relevant environments (p. 32) and (b) include … home languages in theclassroom (p. 32). Specifics of strategy (b) were not provided and these two strategies were described by the authors as evidence of successful training and preparation and that the participants were now better prepared to meet the needs of ELL
children and their families (p. 32).
6%++"2>.'?)2;-#$':-,0'-++-$2"#,'*0-1(2&#Concerns, strategies and challenges reported by staff in the two studies reviewed above were strikingly similar to those found in the Toronto study. Staff in
all three studies reported the same needs of immigrant children: to adjust to the
new environment, to make friends, and to quickly learn English. To meet thesesocial and linguistic needs of immigrant children, staff adopted L2 transition
strategies, where attention was focused on the mastery of English in order tohelp immigrant children fully participate in the life of the centre. Acknowledgment of the importance of home languages was token and symbolic. L1 words
were used as a springboard to the learning of English. The inclusion of cultural
artifacts in the childcare centre was viewed as an important welcoming and304!"#$%&'(#$)*+",-$./0'

bridging strategy. Finally, communication with immigrant parents was reported
as unsettling and problematic.
G=&9)/,4//)"$&
This study has profiled the extent and nature of linguistic diversity in Toronto
childcare centres. The high number of children from minority language homes,
together with the rich linguistic resources of staff, make the label, One Centre –Many Languages an accurate descriptor of Toronto centres. In this linguisticallydiverse community, bilingual and multilingual staff adopted working strategies
that focus on immigrant children’s hasty learning of English.
It will be argued here that such an approach is both narrow and restrictive.
Information about the home language lives of immigrant children, gathered by theauthor over many years, both formally (Chumak-Horbatsch 1999, 2006, 2008) andinformally, reveals that pedagogical practice that focuses on the learning of English
disqualifies and denies the language skills, behaviors, activities and events immigrantchildren experience in their homes. Immigrant children who arrive in childcare
centres are active language learners. They are busy acquiring their home language(in some cases more than one language) and many have some contact with the hostlanguage. Most young immigrant children know songs and share books (with various
systems of writing) in the home language with parents and siblings. Many watch
DVDs and television programs in the home language. Many have some awarenessof written language and are encouraged by parents to add their name to letters
written to grandparents and relatives living in the home country. Most immigrantchildren live in homes where materials written in the home language, such as calendars, newspapers and books are plentiful. Many immigrant children participate
in the reading of religious texts and learn to recite prayers in their home language.
Disregard of such experiences sends the following messages to immigrantchildren: My home language practices are unimportant. The childcare centre is an
English-only zone. and English is far more important than the language I speak
at home. Adoption of L2 focused strategies, driven by the mindset that young immigrant children growing up in English-speaking Canada need only English andthat they can manage only one language, denies the bilingual potential of young
immigrant children and stands in contrast to current research studies of childhood
bilingualism (Baker 2006, Bialystok 2001, Kuhl 2004, Genesee, Paradis & Crago 2004),
which have unequivocally established that young children do have the capacity fordual language learning and have documented personal, social, cognitive, linguistic
and academic benefits of knowing and using two languages.
ECEds then, are encouraged to include immigrant children’s home language
lives in their programs and to heed the home language mandate (Nemeth, 2009), a
research-based directive that describes support for home languages as a necessity(p. 37) and advocates for the inclusion of these languages in classrooms and child-

1","2."%&'3450$,6%&62.,6/305

care centres. Underlying this mandate is the understanding that in their futures
immigrant children will need, in addition to English, other languages in order tostudy and work. (Kennner 2000:xi)
Further, it is important that childcare staff recognize the unique bilingual
situation of immigrant children (Genesee, 2010) and attend to their dual language
needs – their continued development of the home language and their learning of thehost language. When this happens, immigrant children will grow in two languages,
remain connected to their home culture, enjoy the many benefits that come withbilingualism and grow into skilled, contributing members of Canadian society.
Not only immigrant children will benefit when childcare staff adopt L1 focused strategies. English-speaking children who witness daily references to otherlanguages in a positive, additive atmosphere will come to understand and accept
language variation. As they discover that objects can have many different names, as
they hear and learn about the language habits and practices of their peers, they will
be motivated to learn more about the languages represented in their group or centre.

'"$,*4/)"$/The present study has set in motion the documentation of language in a context that has been overlooked by child language and immigration researchers. It is
hoped that similar studies will be conducted in centres across Canada (and beyond)to provide stakeholders with vital information about children’s home language
patterns and linguistic resources of staff. The Language Profile has highlighted
two important features of the Toronto childcare community (and most likely otherlarge Canadian cities). Firstly, the childcare community is populated by minoritylanguage speaking children and staff. Secondly, with the widespread adoption of
L2 focused strategies, immigrant children’s dual language needs are not being met.
These two features are viewed here as an urgent call for supporting childcare
staff in their work with immigrant children. Providing scientifically based information about young children’s dual language learning and about the importanceof the home language in immigrant children’s bilingual development will ensurethat misconceptions and myths do not guide and direct decisions that are madeabout the language needs of immigrant children. Further, equipping childcare staff
with concrete suggestions for meeting the home language mandate will ensure thatmonolingual childcare centres are transformed into multilingual and multi-literateenvironments where the language lives of immigrant children are included, andwhere all children grow to understand and accept linguistic diversity. Such inclusive
environments, where staff build on and extend the language skills young children
bring with them, will convey the following message to children and families:
Home languages are interesting and important.
Dual language learning is encouraged and promoted.

306!"#$%&'(#$)*+",-$./0'

8.>.#.$,./
Baker, C. (2006). Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. Clevedon,
Multilingual Matters.
Barber, K. (Ed.) (2004). Canadian Oxford Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Bernhard, J., Chud, G., Lefebvvre, M.L., & Lange, R. (1996). Linguistic match between
children and caregivers in Canadian Early Childhood Education. Canadian
Journal of Research in Early Childhood Education, 5 (2), 5-18. Also available
from: http://digitalcommons.ryerson/ece/18
Bialystok, E. (2001). Bilingualism in Development: Language, Literacy and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Campbell, G.L. (2000). The Compendium of the World’s Languages. New York:
Routledge.
Canada Census (2006). Language Data: http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2006/ref/rp-guides/lang-eng.cfm (Retrieved July 12th, 2010).
Chang, H.N. (1993). Affirming Children’s Roots, Cultural and Linguistic Diversity
in Early Care and Education. San Francisco, CA: California Tomorrow.
Chumak-Horbatsch, R. (1999). Language Change in the Ukrainian home: fromtransmission to maintenance to the beginnings of loss. Canadian Ethnic Studies Journal, 31 (2), 61-75.
Chumak-Horbatsch, R. (2006). “Mmmmm…I like English!” Linguistic behaviors of
Ukrainian-English bilingual children. Psychology of Language and Communication, 10 (2), 3-25.
Chumak-Horbatsch, R. (2008). Early Bilingualism: Children of immigrants in an
English-language childcare centre. Psychology of Language and Communication, 12 (1), 3-27.
Diversity in Toronto. http://www.toronto.ca/toronto_facts/diversity.htm (Retrieved
July 12th, 2010).
Genesee, F. (2010). Dual language development in preschool children. In E. Garcia& E. Frede (Eds.), Young English Language Learners: Current Research andEmerging Directions for Practice and Policy. New York: Teachers College Press.
Genesee, F., Paradis, J., & Crago, M.B. (2004). Dual Language Development andDisorders: A Handbook on Bilingualism and Second Language Learning. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Goodwin, A.L. (2002). Teacher Preparation and the Education of Immigrant Children. Education and Urban Society, 34 (2), 156-172.
Hardin, B.J., Lower, J.K., Robinson Smallwood, G., Chakravarthi, S., & Jordon,
C. (2010). Teachers, Families and Communities Supporting English Language
Learners in Inclusive Pre-Kindergartens: An Evaluation of a Professional Development Model. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 31, 20-36.

1","2."%&'3450$,6%&62.,6/307

Kenner, C. (2000). Home Pages: Literacy Links for Bilingual Children. London:
Trenthan Books.
Kuhl, P.K. (2004). Early language acquisition: cracking the speech code. Nature
Reviews Neuroscience, (5) 11, 831-843,
Matthews, H. (2008). Support a diverse and culturally competent workforce. Charting Progress for Babies in Childcare. Washington, DC: Centre for Law andSocial Policy.
Nemeth, K. (2009). Meeting the Home Language Mandate, Practical Strategies for
all Classrooms. Young Children, March, 2009, 36-42.
Ontario Ministry of Education (2007). Supporting English Language Learners in Kindergarten. A practical guide for Ontario educators: http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/
eng/document/kindergarten/kindergartenELL.pdf (Retrieved July 24th, 2010).
Pacini-Ketchabaw, V. (2007). Child care and multiculturalism: A site of governancemarked by flexibility and openness. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood,
8 (3), 222-232.