text: Free Continuing Education Whether you're looking to stay current on the latest practices or maintain a license or certification requirement, AORN is your one-stop shop for free CE. Earn contact hours online through on-demand webinar recordings, tool kits, and courses. Get exclusive member access to a growing library of free CE offered through AORN and a complimentary ANA Affiliate Membership included as a free member benefit. Not a member? Join today! Description Available CH AORN On-Demand Webinar Recordings 38.25 AORN Independent Studies 6.4 AORN Tool Kits 7.4 AORN Online Course 1.2 ANA Affiliate Membership Varies TOTAL Over 50 Free CEs ANA Affiliate Membership CH Expires Description Varies Access ANA's Free Online Education Independent Studies CH Expires Description 2.4 12/31/2014 Management of Surgical Hemostasis Funded through the AORN Foundation by a grant from Ethicon Biosurgery. Online Course CH Expires Description 1.5 02/28/2015 Perioperative Nursing Data Set (PNDS) Tool Kits CH Expires Description 1.4 12/31/2013 Safe Patient Handling and Movement Tool Kit 1.0 03/17/2014 Sharps Safety Tool Kit 1.5 03/01/2015 Management of Surgical Smoke Tool Kit NEW! 2.0 03/01/2015 Fire Safety Tool Kit 1.5 07/01/2015 Perioperative Efficiency Tool Kit New! Webinar Recordings CH Expires Description 1.0 04/12/2014 The Advocacy Imperative: It's Non-Negotiable 1.0 05/10/2014 How to Avoid Death-by-PowerPoint 1.0 06/07/2014 Sterilization Recommended Practice: Based on Evidence 1.0 06/14/2014 So…You Want To Be In Management 1.0 06/29/2014 Using Evidence-Based Research in Clinical Practice 1.0 07/11/2014 So, You're Thinking of Returning to School! 1.0 08/09/2014 Perioperative Attire: The Importance of Following the Recommended Practices 1.0 09/19/2014 Taking the Fear Factor Out of Competency Development 1.0 09/20/2014 Preadmission Facilitation: Keys to Patient Safety 1.0 10/11/2014 Evidence-Based Practice in Perioperative Nursing 1.0 10/12/2014 Surgical Fire Prevention and Management 1.0 10/31/2014 What can I find in the Recommended Practices for a Safe Environment of Care 1.0 11/07/2013 The Joint Commission Presents: Accreditation Challenges in the Perioperative Setting 1.0 11/14/2013 Competency Development Part II: Annual education, who needs to know what? 1.0 12/05/2013 Recommended Practices for Sterile Technique 1.0 12/12/2013 Recommended Practices for the Prevention of Transmissible Infections in the Perioperative Setting 1.0 12/13/2013 Medication Safety: How Do You Measure Up? 1.0 01/10/2014 Governance Excellence: The Discipline of a Board Member 1.0 01/12/2014 ASC: Tips for Safe Sharps Practices and OSHA Compliance 1.0 01/27/2014 Evidence-Based Webinar Series(Part 1 of 3) Introduction to Evidence-Based Practice 1.0 02/09/2014 The Impact of Obesity and Treatment Options 1.0 02/19/2014 Hybrid ORs: Evolution, Education, and Design 1.0 02/22/2014 Recommended Practices for Prevention of Deep Vein Thrombosis (DVT) 1.0 02/24/2014 Evidence-Based Webinar Series(Part 2 of 3) Reviewing Evidence for Practice 1.0 02/28/2014 Prepare for the Unexpected: Emergency Drugs and Protocols 1.0 03/01/2014 Is Your ASC Really OSHA Compliant? 0.75 03/08/2014 Value-Based Purchasing: Headed Your Way 1.0 03/18/2014 Healthcare Facilities Accreditation Program: Setting the Standards for Clinical Excellence 1.01.01.0 04/03/201404/10/201404/17/2014 Infection Prevention Webinar Series for the Ambulatory Setting (3-Part Series) Surgical Attire: The Ongoing Challenges - Part 1 Protecting Surgical Patients and Healthcare Workers Through a Safe Environment of Care - Part 2 Injection Safety: What Every Nurse Working in an Ambulatory Surgery Center Needs to Know - Part 3 1.0 06/20/14 Pneumatic Tourniquets: Perspectives from the Inside Out 1.0 06/25/14 5 Keys to Lean Success: Avoiding Common Lean Pitfalls 1.0 06/27/14 Recommended Practices for Sharps Safety 1.0 06/29/2014 Evidence-Based Webinar Series(Part 3 of 3) Using Evidence-Based Research in Clinical Practice 1.0 07/23/14 3 Techniques for Great Lean Leaders 1.0 08/14/14 Perioperative Efficiency 1.0 09/17/14 Recruitment, Retention & Recognition = Satisfaction 0.5 10/09/14 The Role of the Perioperative Clinical Nurse Specialist Accreditation AORN is accredited as a provider of continuing nursing education by the American Nurses Credentialing Center's Commission on Accreditation. AORN is Provider approved by the California Board of Registered Nursing, Provider Number CEP 13019. DisclaimerAORN recognizes these activities as continuing education for registered nurses. This recognition does not imply that AORN or the American Nurses Credentialing Center approves or endorses products mentioned in the activity. AEUWhen the content is appropriate for Ambulatory Surgery Center Administrators, programs may be approved for AEU credit by BASC Provider #0102. CopyrightAORN's training and educational materials are protected under federal copyright and trademark law. Only registered students may use our materials. Any unauthorized use of our materials is strictly prohibited. Violations of these requirements or of our valuable intellectual property rights may incur substantial penalties, including statutory damages of up to $150,000 for a single willful violation of AORN's copyrights.


text:
Cancun Casa Rolandi Hotels + Wheelchair Accessible + clean rooms
Know When You're Going?
More Search OptionsHotel Amenities
- Wheelchair Accessible
Hotels by Type
- Vacation Rental Hotels (5)
- All Inclusive Hotels (4)
- Luxury Hotels (4)
- Resort Hotels (3)
- Cheap Hotels (2)
- Suite Hotels (1)
"We stayed 8 days March of 2011. Hotel was very nice and convenient walk to many fun p... Read more"
"Prepare yourself for a 30 minute check-in and check-out. I asked for alternatives for... Read more"
"Terrible experience, bad service, dirty rooms. Very expensive for the type of hotel, ... Read more"
"WE STAYED HERE FOR 7 DAYS AND IT WAS GREAT! IT WAS ACTUALLY MORE THAN WHAT WE EXPECTE... Read more"
"We always enjoy ourselves here. Just need to watch yourself if you go out on the pie... Read more"
"Best hotel ever. Service, food, staff - everything was just perfect. They even exch... Read more"
"We traveled with two children 4 and 6 had one of the best vacations ever! Food was g... Read more"
"I traveled to Cancun on a tour that disclosed the hotel at the airport shortly before... Read more"
"My husband and I travel frequently and we have never been so offended. My husband is ... Read more"
"My wife and I had the best time at this hotel. We were amazed at the staff both for t... Read more"
"I've been to Mexico about 10 times and I would put this place in the top 3 for locati... Read more"
" To be fair I would say this hotel is really is a 31/2 star hotel. Having stayed at ... Read more"
"Hi- If you are looking for a great all-inclusive place in the hotel zone this is PER... Read more"
"Arrived on 3/4/11. They let us check in early and gave us a large room since there w... Read more"
Note: The nightly rates shown above do not yet include Tax Recovery Charge & Service Fees or (if applicable) Extra Person Fees, Child Fees, Additional Mandatory Hotel Charges or optional incidentals, such as parking, room service or movies.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Oct 10, 2012, 11:49 AM | ||
I change for OEM motor buy at banggood.con. I stock always 3 x OEM motors for my 2 x DH9116 and 1 x DH9100 ( DH9100 converted to DH9116). The tail hold up with the new main motor. Just before taking off the ground, adjust the tail boom center with the trim and take off. The helico will take off straight into the air. I think I'm about 50 flights with an OEM motor. I am trying to test my change on my OEM tail motor for me when everything seems to go super well, I hope to reach about 50 flights with this change because it is better protected. I stock also 3 x OEM tail motor . http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showp...postcount=3474 Bye Gilles |
Last edited by OrangeBird; Oct 10, 2012 at 12:09 PM.
Oct 10, 2012, 02:00 PM | |
So last night, I managed to get in the official maiden flight of my new 9116!
It was a relatively windy day yesterday so I was afraid that I wouldn't be able to fly the 9116, but I got lucky. The wind just so happened to die down right before the daylight went away, so I took advantage of the moment and managed to get the 9116 in the air for its first flight. She flew well!! There was a gentle breeze of maybe 5 MPH (receding from 15-20 MPH earlier in the day) and the 9116 cut into that light breeze without any struggle whatsoever. I mostly just flew in circles and tested the bird's maneuverability, but it was fun nonetheless. I also managed to trim it out a little better than my test flight in the garage earlier in the day. I didn't hit anything and I didn't crash! The flight did end with a slightly rough landing though. Before the flight I gave a thorough (and slow) read through of the transmitter's instruction manual for the second time. After playing with the transmitter while reading the manual, I began to understand what everything meant and what its capable of. It is still is a horrible manual, and I still have questions that need clarification regarding the transmitter, but I'm sure these answers will come in time. Maybe another read through might be beneficial. I haven't had a chance to play with the fine tuning just yet as I'm still trying to gain understanding of the transmitter features and getting used to the bird and how she flies. I'll play with these features a little later. In the end, the flight was satisfying, entertaining, and it lived up to my expectations. Can't wait to fly the 9116 again! |
Oct 10, 2012, 03:41 PM | |
Joined Oct 2012
8 Posts
Glad to hear it husky, im stuck at work real eager to try mine again. Now one question I noticed my heli would usually shift to the right when it's about to hover. I didnt have much time to read that hard manual but anyone know what setting name controls the right movement. Note im not talking about the tail turning, the actual bird. Also with the quick trim switch where you click it side to side, I clicked that a few times to the left but it didn't seem to do much. So I'm trying to set it in the menu so it stays, thanks.
Oct 10, 2012, 04:07 PM | ||
Bye Gilles |
Oct 10, 2012, 07:15 PM | ||
If you wanted just to say the heli leans to the right while hovering more or less still in the air - that's caused by the head-construction and pure physics. Don't try to compensate with weight on the left skid etc, reduces only flight time and maxes tear n' wear. To Your question of movements and terms: Elevators does not mean elevation, it means pitch (nose up and down), ailerons means roll (bank left and right) and rudder means yaw (rotation of the axis). Throttle controls elevation on any fixed pitch heli. Speed is achieved by how much you pitch the nose down (elevators) while holding a consistent elevation by adjusting the throttle. -mike- |
Oct 10, 2012, 09:23 PM | |
Joined Oct 2012
8 Posts
Alright I'm still not home grr, must fly. Anyways im not sure i know how to do the mechanic trim because I don't have the right tools for it and don't want to mess anything up. As far as the weight thing I know some people said don't add weight to the heli. But i already taped 3 pennies to the front of the canopy. The heli was doing a lot of back flight. Ill look through the menu settings again at home and try to adjust it. I'll report back with any issues I have, thanks for the help. I'm real noob a with this stuff atm.
Oct 11, 2012, 12:37 AM | |
Joined Jan 2012
102 Posts
For any new 9116 pilots I would strongly suggest looking up "Stormforces " blog on this forum. In my oppinion as well Im sure aswell as many others his site should be labled the 9116 "Bible" All you need to know is there Dont waste your time searching this forum Its like 3800 posts long Steve
Thread Tools | |
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
New Product the first double horse 2.4G and 4CH single blade helicopter 9116 | hkmtk | Beginner Training Area (Heli-Electric) | 32 | May 21, 2013 02:27 PM |
Help! Heli Spins out when ascending (Z101, looks like the double horse) | Shlofter | Electric Heli Talk | 5 | Aug 16, 2012 02:59 AM |
Discussion Double Horse 9097 24" Heli | Jake8131 | Electric Heli Talk | 8 | Mar 14, 2012 08:05 AM |
Sold 9089 Double Horse Shuttle Electric Heli w/Video DVR | Senor Jack | Aircraft - Electric - Helis (FS/W) | 0 | Apr 10, 2011 09:15 PM |


text:
Admissions |
The chart below shows your chances of admission to this school, based on the information in your profile.
Create a free profile so you can see your chances at Rocky Mountain College - Montana and thousands of other top colleges.
Admissions Tests Required: | Required |
Completion of College Preparatory Program: | Recommended |
Recommendations: | Recommended |
Secondary School GPA: | Required |
Secondary School Rank: | Recommended |
Secondary School Record: | Required |
TOEFL: | Recommended |
$35 | Undergrad Application Fee |
$35 | Graduate Application Fee |
AP Acceptance: | |
Credit for Life Experience: |
Many colleges put a great deal of weight on student ACT/SAT test scores when considering applications. Cappex can help you see how you rank compared to students who have been accepted to Rocky Mountain College - Montana
Address: | 1511 Poly Drive Billings, MT 59102-1796 |
Phone: | (406) 657-1000 |
Admissions Phone: | (406) 657-1026 |
General Site: | rocky.edu/ |
Admissions: | rocky.edu/admissions/ |
Application: | rocky.edu/admissions/ApplyNow.php |
Make sure you really know what you want to do when you get here.
Read MoreBe outgoing and participate in as many things you can.
Read MoreBe prepared to learn in a new enviornment unlike high school or larger colleges/universities.
Read MoreApply early for scholarships.
Read MoreMaintain a good GPA, and consider this college for many different studies. Don't limit yourself to MSU colleges, give private schools a chance. Have good reference letters and academic progress.
Read More


text:
A collection of news and information related to Maryland State Police published by this site and its partners.
Top Maryland State Police Articles
Displaying items 89-99
Small plane crashes in Bowie cornfield
Driver in fatal motorcycle accident identified
Hagerstown police seek driver who crashed vehicle during chase
MAG receives FAA certification to do advance maintenance, customization on AW139 helicopters
Maryland man killed when mower rolls on top of him
Story | Aug 11, 2013 | 10:32 AMA 42-year-old Washington County man was killed early Saturday evening after a mowing tractor he was riding rolled over pinning him beneath the mower. Terry Verdier, who lived in the 22200 block of Jefferson Road in Smithsburg, was using a zero-turn style... -
Man hurt in go-kart accident
Story | Aug 11, 2013 | 2:52 PMA man was taken to Meritus Medical Center on Sunday afternoon after a go-kart rollover accident was reported near Smithsburg, a Washington County 911 supervisor said. The man had a severely injured hand, the supervisor said. A Maryland State Police... -
Henry retires from state police after nearly 33 years of service
Baltimore woman killed in Kent Narrows motorcycle crash
Both political sides praise drug changes
Story | Aug 12, 2013 | 8:12 PM— In a sign of growing disenchantment with the war on drugs, conservatives joined Democrats and reform advocates Monday in praising Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.'s declaration that it was time to rethink get-tough policies that have tied the... -
Driver flown to hospital after SUV crashes on I-70
Man dies in mowing accident near Smithsburg


text:
Isaac Daniel GPS Sneakers
Filed under: Shoes
We've seen running shoes with a microprocessor that adjusts to your step but what about a shoe that could actually track where you are going? The shoes by Isaac Daniel include a GPS (Global Positioning System) embedded in the sole. The new Compass line also includes a Covert Alarm Locator Apparatus™ incorporated into the shoe's design which generates an emergency signal to a tracking station. A call to a 24-hour monitoring service can located the shoes anywhere around. The line includes walking shoes as well as running shoes. The sneakers sell for $325 and up. Isaac Daniel is one of the sponsors of Fashion Week in LA next week so I may check out these shoes in person.


text:
Sociocultural Aspects of Russian‐Speaking Parents' Choice of Language of Instruction for Their Children in Estonia Author(s): Raija Pini Kemppainen, Scott Ellis Ferrin, Steven J. Hite, Sterling C. Hilton Reviewed work(s): Source: Comparative Education Review, Vol. 52, No. 1 (February 2008), pp. 93-119 Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of the Comparative and International Education Society Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/524307 . Accessed: 07/03/2012 16:49 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact firstname.lastname@example.com. The University of Chicago Press and Comparative and International Education Society are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Comparative Education Review. http://www.jstor.org Electronically published January 9, 2008 Comparative Education Review, vol. 52, no. 1. 2008 by the Comparative and International Education Society. All rights reserved. 0010-4086/2008/5201-0002$10.00 Comparative Education Review 93 Sociocultural Aspects of Russian-Speaking Parents' Choice of Language of Instruction for Their Children in Estonia RAIJA PINI KEMPPAINEN, SCOTT ELLIS FERRIN, STEVEN J. HITE, AND STERLING C. HILTON In most cases, parents whose native language is not predominant in the area they live in have no opportunity to choose the language for their children's instruction in schools. However, in some areas language minority families have options regarding the language of instruction (e.g., Finns in Sweden and Rus-sians in Estonia). This article focuses on language choice from the viewpoint of these families. Typically, discussions of language of instruction have focused on integrative issues, such as creating loyal citizens, or instrumental or practical issues, such as education or labor market opportunities (Mets 2004). Choice, however, may have deeper cultural and emotional meanings for families, and such meanings may need to be considered by policy makers. In the United States, for example, policy debates on language of instruc-tion have largely focused on whether or not to employ bilingual education strategies. In fact, states such as California, Arizona, and Massachusetts have forbidden (via referenda) the use of bilingual education, mandating English immersion, with approximately a year of transition in limited instances. Con-sequently, research in this area has become so politicized that, when a panel of scholars from the National Research Council studied the issue and found a positive effect from bilingual education, an opponent of bilingual education wrote that the report of the panel was intended to convey that "there is no evidence that there will be long-term advantages or disadvantages to teaching limited-English students in the native language" (Glenn 1997, 66). The study directors themselves had stated to the contrary: "Empirical results . . . sup-port the theory underlying native language instruction" (August and Hakuta 1997, 147). Similarly, a recent meta-analytical study regarding the effectiveness of bilingual versus monolingual educational methods conducted by a panel of researchers appointed by the Bush administration found small to modest gains from bilingual programs. However, the Bush administration, after seeing the findings, declined to release the report (Krashen and McField 2005). In such a highly charged policy climate in the United States, most parents do not have a choice in the language of instruction for their children's schooling. The U.S. language policy clearly is limiting families' language 94 February 2008 KEMPPAINEN, FERRIN, HITE, AND HILTON choices, whereas some immigrant-receiving countries have disregarded im-migrant policies in other respects. Despite its 5 million Turks, Germany tends to deny being an immigrant country (Beck 2003).1 Turkish immigrants are generally perceived as tem-porary migrant workers, a view that might be connected with the lack of a comprehensive immigration and naturalization policy. Immigrant families in Germany tend to lack educational support, despite evidence (e.g., from the Programme for International Student Assessment study) that their immigra-tion and socioeconomic challenges cause immigrant children on average to have lower academic performance than the majority student population (Beck 2003; Hebenstreit-Mu¨ller 2003). German schools typically focus solely on German as the language of instruction. Bilingual education has not been given sufficient consideration in Germany, despite evidence of the long-term positive effects of bilingualism on linguistic and academic development as indicated in international research. Consequently, the language issue in German schools is treated as a transitional problem (Gogolin 2003). In contrast, education policies in some countries emphasize the signifi-cance of students' first language. Many of these countries allow parents from "large" minority groups to choose whether to have their children instructed in their own or in the majority group's language. For example, in Sweden, the Finns, a historic and immigration-based population, may have their chil-dren taught bilingually or in their native language.2 In bilingual classrooms for Finnish students in Sweden, half (at most) of the instruction occurs in the child's first language. In friskolor (Finnish free schools), the language principle is the same as in bilingual schools: instruction is provided in Finnish and Swedish (Tuomela 2001). The goal in Sweden is to assure the active bilingualism of all immigrant children. Swedish municipalities are obligated to organize instruction in the first language (2 hours weekly) for schools in which there are at least five children of the same language background (Tuomela 2001). Likewise, in Finland, the goal is to provide functional bilingualism for immigrant students (e.g., Russians, Estonians, Somalis) through the use of Finnish as a second language and through 2 hours of instruction per week in the first language (Opetushallitus 2004). In addition, Finland is officially a bilingual country (Finnish and Swedish), and the Swedish-speaking pop- 1 However, in recent years there has been a movement at the national political level about this previously ignored area of policy (Beck 2003). Although easy access to German citizenship for Turkish immigrants has long been unresolved ( Joppke 1996), the naturalization rate is increasing. In 1990 only 1 percent of the Turks in Germany had German citizenship, whereas by 1999 the figure had risen to 17.5 percent (Østergaard-Nielsen 2003). Citizenship requires 8 years of residence and 5 years of em-ployment in Germany and knowledge of German language and history. Since 2001, children born to immigrant parents in Germany with one of the parents having an unlimited permission of residence automatically receive German citizenship. 2 Reinforcing this language-of-instruction policy, the Finnish language was officially recognized as a national minority language in Sweden in 2000, providing language protection (Lainio 2001). Comparative Education Review 95 LANGUAGE OF INSTRUCTION FOR RUSSIAN-SPEAKING CHILDREN IN ESTONIA ulation has broad language rights, including, for example, the availability of education in Swedish from preschool to university levels. The status of the Swedish language in education in Finland is somewhat similar to the status of the Russian language in education in Estonia. Both minority languages (Swedish in Finland and Russian in Estonia) used to be dominant languages in the countries. Until the nineteenth century Finland was a part of Sweden; thus Swedish speakers are not considered an immigrant-based population. The Russian-speaking population in Estonia entered the country during the Russian occupation after World War II (Rannut 2004b), largely between the 1940s and 1980s (Vetik 1993). The present research was undertaken to identify sociocultural variables that influence whether Russian-speaking parents living in Estonia choose Rus-sian, Estonian, or bilingual (Russian and Estonian) instruction for their chil-dren. The sociocultural situation of Russian speakers in Estonia is particularly interesting because Russian was the lingua franca in the Soviet Republic of Estonia but has become a foreign language in independent Estonia. Notably, Russian speakers have broad opportunities to use their language in Estonian society, with access to Russian-language services in the private service sector, media, and culture (Issakov 1999). There is also a vast and proximate reservoir of Russian speakers surrounding Estonia. Additionally, although Russian speak-ers have somewhat lower workplace salaries (Titma et al. 1998), their level of educational attainment equals that of Estonian speakers (Pavelson 2000). Although both the Turkish- and Russian-language minorities formed dur-ing roughly the same era, the situation of the Turkish population in Germany is quite different from Russian speakers in Estonia. For instance, Turks in Germany have limited access to local news in the Turkish language, though they can easily access satellite channels and print news media from Turkey (Østergaard-Nielsen 2003) that cover news stories in European countries such as Germany. Moreover, compared to the German average, Turkish immigrants are more often in the lowest category of the EGP (Erikson, Goldthorpe, Portocarero) class scheme. While 14 percent of Germans belong to the lowest social class, as many as 80 percent of Turks who immigrated to Germany as adults are in this class (Kalter and Granato 2002). In addition, unemployment among Turkish youth in Germany is high, and a disproportionately high number of Turkish students leave school without qualifications (Beck 2003; Østergaard-Nielsen 2003). Background After centuries of rule by neighboring countries, Estonia became inde-pendent in 1918. During its short period of independence, Estonian culture and economy progressed rapidly. However, the Second World War inter-rupted this progress, and the country was occupied first by the Soviet Union and then by Nazi Germany. At the end of the war Estonia was annexed to 96 February 2008 KEMPPAINEN, FERRIN, HITE, AND HILTON the Soviet Union and remained a part of the USSR until 1991. During the annexation years there was a massive immigration of Russian speakers from Russia and other Soviet republics to Estonia, due both to colonizing policy and to Estonia's relatively higher standard of living (Kionka and Vetik 1996). Although some have referred to the Russians in Estonia as a "colonial minority" (Kirch et al. 1997), those who have entered Estonia from other countries are classified as immigrants according to criteria of international law (Capotorti 1977). In the 1989 census, those who were foreign born (in-cluding their children) made up 36 percent of the whole population (ESA, as cited in Katus et al. 1998), which means that nearly all those not of Estonian descent (comprising 38.5 percent of the country's residents) are first- or second-generation immigrants (Kirch 1999). Russian speakers, along with Belarusians and Ukrainians, who mostly are assimilated with the Russians in Estonia, represent about one-third of the population in Estonia (Kirch 1999). During the Soviet era, many Estonian institutions—such as banks, statis-tical bureaus, the militia (Russian police), transportation systems, and in-dustrial production—functioned in the Russian language (Rannut 1991). A Russian-language school network was established to serve Russian-speaking children, while Estonian-speaking children attended Estonian schools (Es-tonian Ministry of Education 1997). Education from preschool to university was provided in the native language for the main populations in Estonia, in contrast to education in the other Soviet republics, which was mostly in Russian.3 However, Estonian schools were required to teach Russian as a second "native language" (Rannut and Rannut 1995), and the curricula in Russian-language schools included some practical Estonian as a second lan-guage. The emphasis on the Russian language created one-way bilingualism: Estonians were expected to learn the Russian language, while only a small percentage of Russians learned Estonian. The linguistic situation changed after Estonia regained its independence in the fall of 1991. Estonia reformulated the status of Russians by language legislation: Estonian became the national language, and Russian became a foreign language (Rannut 2001, 2004a). In addition, most nonnative Esto-nians (over 250,000 people) became noncitizens based on new citizenship policies. A large number of them took Estonian citizenship, but many others chose Russian citizenship. Estonian citizenship required 5 years of residence (Smith et al. 1998) as well as knowledge and skill in the Estonian language— listening comprehension, reading and summarizing, conversational speaking, and simple writing (Rannut 2001). Since the early years of independence, the number of Estonian citizens has risen constantly. Further, the share of non-Estonians with ability to speak Estonian has increased from 14 percent in 1988 to 37 percent in 2000 (Rannut 2004a). According to the 2000 census, 3 Juri Valge, personal communication, September 21, 2000. Comparative Education Review 97 LANGUAGE OF INSTRUCTION FOR RUSSIAN-SPEAKING CHILDREN IN ESTONIA about 40 percent of the Russians living in Estonia had Estonian citizenship, while 37 percent remained "undefined" (ESA Statistikaamet 2005). Changes in language and citizenship policies and practice posed major challenges for Russian speakers in Estonia (Vihalemm and Lauristin 1999). An estimated 100,000 Russian speakers emigrated to other parts of the former Soviet Union during the 1990s (Issakov 1999; Vetik 1999), with the factors for emigration being, along with the withdrawal of the Russian military, changes in the social and economic environments and a surge in national identity, especially among Belorusians and Ukrainians (Rannut 2004a). The new language and citizenship policies aroused criticism among non-Estonians (Vallens 1995). However, resistance toward the citizenship and language po-lices has declined, and some scholars characterize the remaining Russian speakers in Estonia as socioeconomic immigrants with no significant interest in political agendas nor involvement in political mobilization (Smith 1998; Ozolins 2000). Nevertheless, the unrest in Tallinn in May 2007 concerning the removal of a statue commemorating Soviet soldiers suggests that political tensions may exist beneath the surface. Estonian policies regarding the Russian-speaking population gained po-litical attention elsewhere in Europe after independence. For example, Russia accused Estonia of human rights violations. Although the human rights com-missions found no violations, in order to gain membership Estonia had to comply with the recommendations from the European Union in its language policy development (Ozolins 2000). Language policy requests by the Orga-nization for Security and Co-operation in Europe were incorporated into the Estonian language law, softening the language requirements set for immi-grants. For example, the use of the Russian language has been expanded in several domains, such as the service sector (Mets 2004). Differing from language policies for other sectors, public education has continuously designated both Russian and Estonian as official languages of instruction, at least at the basic education level. About 70 percent of Russian children still attend Russian-language schools at all grade levels (Language Immersion Centre 2006a). The academic level of these schools compares well with that of the Estonian-language schools (Riiklik eksami-ja kvalifikat-sioonikeskus 2006). The Law of Basic and Secondary Education passed in 1993 and amended in 1997 required that the language of instruction at the secondary level, grades 10–12, in state and municipal Russian-language schools shift from Russian to Estonian by 2007 (Rannut 2001). However, according to the Min-istry of Education, there are no plans to eliminate Russian instruction in Russian-language basic schools, grades 1–9.4 Although some Russian-language schools have been able to prepare their students for the shift of language of 4 Likewise, Latvia and Lithuania retained education for the native population in their native lan-guages, Latvian and Lithuanian, during the Soviet era. 98 February 2008 KEMPPAINEN, FERRIN, HITE, AND HILTON instruction, the Estonian parliament has granted an extension for the shift (Mets 2004). The greatest obstacle for the shift is in preparing Russian-speak-ing teachers to teach in Estonian (Mets 2004).5 Some politicians have viewed the future of Russian high schools as a major unsolved language policy issue in Estonia (Mets 2004). Recent research indicates that one-third of Russian public school students in Estonia have no interest in studying the Estonian language (Kunnas 2004). In contrast, many Russian-speaking families want to guarantee acquisition of the Estonian language for their children, and they seek out language alter-natives in education. These families typically send their children to Estonian-language schools. This trend became more common in the mid-1990s after the Law of Basic and Secondary Education was passed (Kemppainen and Ferrin 2002); by 2001 approximately 5 percent of Russian children studied in Estonian-speaking schools (Rannut 2001). Generally, Russian students in Estonia are encouraged to enter Estonian schools, particularly preschools. Granting access to Estonian-language schools is a school-level decision, depending on the interest of the school. Some Estonian schools, particularly the most desirable ones, may have language requirements that potentially limit access by non-Estonian-speaking youth.6 However, with the declining student population in Estonia, there is compe-tition over students, which may cause schools to admit students with poor Estonian-language skills. In areas where the Russian population density is low and the number of Russian-language schools is limited, it is common for Russian speakers to attend Estonian-language schools.7 Yet another language option for Russian-speaking students in Estonia is to enter an immersion program, a bilingual program in which a child's first and second languages are both used for instruction. Immersion programs are administered under the Language Immersion Centre (2006b). The stu-dents in these programs are not expected to have previous knowledge of Estonian; in fact, program administrators anticipate that Estonian will not be one of the students' home languages. According to Larissa Vassiltshenko and colleagues (1998), non-Estonian-speaking parents prefer bilingual basic ed-ucation in grades 1–9, as indicated by program expansion. In 2001 there were seven early immersion programs in Estonia, but by 2003–4 there were 12 early immersion programs and 20 late immersion programs (Language Immersion Centre 2006c). Currently, 2,552 students are enrolled in these programs (Language Immersion Centre 2006a), constituting 25 percent of the non-Estonian student population.8 5 In contrast, a similar shift in Latvia occurred as planned in 2004 (Kunnas 2004; Radzevich 2004). 6U¨lle Rannut, personal communication, August 22, 2005. 7 Marje Pavelson, personal communication, September 18, 2000. In this research, elite schools were excluded from sampling. 8 Mart Rannut, personal communication, July 25, 2006. Comparative Education Review 99 LANGUAGE OF INSTRUCTION FOR RUSSIAN-SPEAKING CHILDREN IN ESTONIA Variables Associated with Choice of Language of Instruction Parents' choice of language of instruction for their children is a complex phenomenon. Such choice needs to be examined in political, demographic, and social contexts, and decisions may involve several variables. Relevant variables include sociocultural variables, such as language attitudes; peda-gogical variables, such as parental assumptions regarding second-language acquisition; linguistic variables, such as children's level of second-language proficiency; family-related variables, such as socioeconomic status; and school-related variables, such as quality of education or distance to school. Because of the wide range of potential variables associated with the choice of language of instruction, this investigation is limited to sociocultural variables, empha-sizing social and cultural relations and perceptions of these relations between the majority and minority language speakers. Literature concerning parental choice of language of instruction and factors related to that choice is limited. Robert Gardner and Wallace Lam-bert's (1972) classic work on motivation to learn a language refers to instru-mental motives, such as gaining educational and job opportunities, and in-tegrative reasons, which pertain to gaining citizenship and integrating into the host society. Gardner and Lambert's theory is based on the assumption that learning the second or foreign language is desirable socially or is possibly the only acceptable language behavior politically or economically. However, when language choice is available, such as choice of a first language as lan-guage of educational instruction, a cultural motivation may exist, such as the desire to maintain separation of the native culture, seemingly a reverse of integrative motivation. For example, research in Canada among French-speak-ing parents demonstrated that some parents sent their children to French-language schools to maintain their ethnic identity, culture, and language—to remain within their minority group heritage (Landy and Allard 1985).9 The variables included in the present study were identified based on John Schumann's (1978, 1986) acculturation model and the findings of an asso-ciated qualitative study (Kemppainen et al. 2004). The findings of Kemp-painen and colleagues reinforce Schumann's work, stressing the importance of the following sociocultural variables: social dominance, enclosure, inte-gration strategy, length of residence, congruence or similarity of cultures, and intergroup attitudes.10 Social dominance refers to political, technical, or cultural superiority. If 9 Earlier research in Estonia investigating school language choice examined language program options and parental preferences but did not seek to explain these preferences in relation to socio-cultural or other factors (see, e.g., Vassiltshenko et al. 1998; Vihalemm 1998). 10 Schumann adds the following variables as well: the size of the language group and its cohesive-ness. The sample was drawn from communities with different sizes of Russian population to achieve variation in the sample; however, because the selection focused on schools with different language programs in given communities, the data do not allow the choice of school language in these different communities to be compared. Cohesiveness was not investigated in this research. 100 February 2008 KEMPPAINEN, FERRIN, HITE, AND HILTON speakers of the national language have social dominance, the resulting social distance may hinder minority language speakers from learning the national or target language. Conversely, when the speakers of the smaller language group (e.g., a colonial group) are socially dominant, people in the smaller language group do not tend to learn the majority language. During the Soviet era, some Russian speakers (e.g., scientists, party members, and military of-ficers) formed an elite group along with the Estonian-speaking upper class. The Russians in Estonia at this time had social dominance, with "Russification" policies influencing linguistic practice (Rannut 1991); thus Russians had little need to learn Estonian. After Estonian independence, Russian became a foreign language, and many Russian speakers lost their citizenship status. These changes in the political and linguistic situation likely affected social dominance in Estonia, which may have influenced language of instruction choice. When Russian parents perceive greater dominance by Estonian speak-ers, they are predicted to choose Russian language instruction, while per-ceiving social equality is expected to be associated with choosing Estonian language instruction for their children. Enclosure refers to the degree to which the groups share social institutions (Schumann 1978, 1986). Low social enclosure (groups contacting frequently rather than remaining enclosed as units) may enhance second-language learning. Traditionally Russians and Estonians have had high enclosure— separate communities and institutions—and Russian-speaking social and cul-tural institutions continue to exist. Segregation of Russian speakers and Es-tonian speakers is still high, as evidenced by different housing areas, work places, cultural habits, and marriage partners (Rannut 2004a). This situation is a predictor of low second-language learning and, by extension, of low preference by Russian-speaking parents for Estonian or bilingual programs, whereas Russian-speaking respondents who have more contact with Estonian-speaking people are expected to favor Estonian and bilingual options. Integration strategy differentiates members of the minority language groups who do not assimilate into the majority culture, those who do assimilate but preserve their own culture, and those who fully acculturate and abandon much of their minority culture. According to some research, only a very small percentage of Russian speakers are willing to fully assimilate into Estonian culture (Laitin 1996), but many Russian speakers are adapting to the reality of the language requirements, as indicated in increased Estonian-language acquisition (Pettai and Proos 1999; Rannut 2004a) and increased Estonian citizenship (ESA Statistikaamet 2005). Thus, it is anticipated that Russian parents who perceive themselves as more integrated into Estonian culture are more likely to choose to send their children to Estonian language or bilingual schools. Additionally, Russian-speaking parents' intended length of residence is ex-pected to be positively associated with interest in choosing Estonian-language Comparative Education Review 101 LANGUAGE OF INSTRUCTION FOR RUSSIAN-SPEAKING CHILDREN IN ESTONIA schools. And, extrapolating from Schumann's (1978, 1986) notion that sec-ond- language learning is facilitated by the extent of congruence between the majority and minority group cultures, it could be predicted that Russian-speaking parents who perceive greater similarity in the two cultures would tend to choose Estonian schools. Also, intergroup attitudes are associated with second-language acquisition (Schumann 1978, 1986), and, according to Kemppainen and colleagues (2004), attitudes toward the first and second language and native and majority culture are expected to be associated with choice of language of instruction.U¨ lle Rannut's (2005) research that further tested some of the findings of Kemppainen and colleagues emphasized the importance of attitudes toward the second language when choosing educa-tion in that language for one's children. Russian-speaking parents with more positive attitudes toward Estonian language and culture are expected to choose Estonian-language schools. Finally, Russian-speaking parents who have at least some Estonian ethnic background and who identify themselves as Estonian are anticipated to be more likely to select Estonian language edu-cation for their children (Kemppainen et al. 2004). In summary, the sociocultural variables adopted for this research were social dominance, enclosure, citizenship and second-language proficiency (integration strategies), length of residence, attitudes toward the first lan-guage, attitudes toward the second language, attitudes toward the native culture, cultural congruence (attitudes toward the majority culture), ethnic background, and ethnic identity. Figure 1 presents a model of the sociocul-tural variables and interactions that were initially hypothesized to affect par-ents' choice of language of instruction. Method To examine which sociocultural variables are related to parents' choice of language of instruction, 346 Russian-speaking parents in three towns in Estonia were surveyed. Using a cross-sectional survey design, researchers col-lected data during the fall of 2001 in Estonia. Follow-up research conducted by U¨ lle Rannut (2005) tested further some of the findings of this study. Sample Because a large majority (91 percent) of Russian speakers lives in urban areas (Rannut 2004a), the sample was designed to represent the urban pop-ulation of Russian-speaking parents with children currently in Estonian public schools. Three towns reflecting differences in Russian concentration and socioeconomic status were chosen (Fowler 1993; Neuman 1994). Narva, Tal-linn, and Tartu are, respectively, 92 percent, 47 percent, and 16 percent Russian speaking (Veidemann 1999).11 Tallinn has the highest socioeconomic 11 Mart Rannut, personal communication, September 30, 2001. 102 February 2008 KEMPPAINEN, FERRIN, HITE, AND HILTON Fig. 1.—Initial sociocultural variables associated with choice of language of instruction level in all of Estonia, measured in per capita income, including salary and other sources of income, while Narva has the lowest socioeconomic level of the three selected towns (Vihalemm 1997). Additionally, most (81 percent) Russian-language schools in Estonia are situated in Tallinn and surrounding areas and in northeast Estonia, including the city of Narva and surrounding counties, and in Tartu (Kirch 2001). To the extent that these three towns represent diverse urban settings in Estonia, the results may be carefully gen-eralized to Russian speakers in Estonia. In each town, sampling for research subjects occurred in two stages. First, school types were purposefully selected to ensure that the main language options for Russian-speaking students (Russian, Estonian, and bilingual) were represented. The individual schools were identified using probability sam-pling through a randomized list of the different school types in each town.12 12 For practical reasons, two randomly selected Russian-language schools were replaced by not randomly selected cases because of insufficient information regarding schools. In Tallinn the randomly selected Russian school had a gu¨mnasium with adult learners, and therefore only the fifth-grade level was available in the school for this research, and the sample of gu¨mnasium students was replaced. The gu¨mnasium-level students were selected from the same Russian school that was identified for researching students in bilingual programs. In Tartu, a school with a Russian name was identified, but despite the name it turned out to be an Estonian school. There were only a few Russian schools available, and, because these schools did not differ significantly from one another, one of them was selected. The two Comparative Education Review 103 LANGUAGE OF INSTRUCTION FOR RUSSIAN-SPEAKING CHILDREN IN ESTONIA To survey only schools with the typical choice situation, elite schools with restricted admissions were dropped from the sampling list. Second, students in the randomly selected schools were sampled to determine which parents were to be surveyed. Parents of students in eleven schools were surveyed, including three schools each in Narva and Tartu and five schools in Tallinn. Initially, three age groups were chosen: fifth- and eleventh-grade students in Estonian- and Russian-speaking schools, in order to give variance in pa-rental perceptions, and second-grade students in bilingual programs, since at the time of data collection second graders were the oldest age group in most of these new programs. However, because there were few Russian stu-dents in Estonian-language schools in Tallinn and Tartu, all grades were included in the sample. In the Narva Estonian school, the only Estonian-language school in the town, the fifth and sixth graders and the whole gu¨m-nasium level (grades 10–12) were included.13 In Russian schools with several classes in the same level, the school administrators selected the classes to be included. It appears that the parents selected for the research had a real opportunity to choose the school and language for their children. The par-ents did not indicate anywhere (e.g., in open comments, inquiring about reasons for choice) that the choice would be impacted by limited access to school. Measurement and Data Collection The questionnaire was designed to measure the 11 sociocultural variables predicted to be related to parental choice of language of instruction:14 • Social dominance (measured as self-perceptions of superiority/equal-ity/ inferiority of minority [first] language speakers vis-a`-vis majority [sec-ond] language speakers) • Enclosure (measured as contact/wish for contact with the second lan-guage speakers on a scale of four levels ) • Integration strategies (measured as citizenship—Russian, Estonian, other—and second-language proficiency on a scale of five levels) • Length of residence (measured in years) • Attitudes toward the first language (measured as perceived importance of the first language in future society in a ranking order from one to schools replacing the randomly selected schools are similar to the schools in each town and do not have distinctive characteristics that would affect the outcome of the research, according to an Estonian informant (Mart Rannut, personal communication, February 24, 2003). 13 The age ranges of students in the Russian and Estonian schools were similar, and the perspectives of these parents should compare well. However, the students in the bilingual programs were younger, a fact that might bias the comparison between the bilingual schools and the other language programs, as parents of younger parents may differ in their other demographic characteristics, attitudes, and even factors for school program selection. 14 The questionnaire was translated from English to Russian and back translated by a native Russian speaker to English for lexicon equivalence before the final version was completed (Neuman 1994). 104 February 2008 KEMPPAINEN, FERRIN, HITE, AND HILTON five) • Attitudes toward the second language (measured as perceived value of the second language on a scale of four levels) • Attitudes toward the native culture (measured as perceived importance of maintaining native culture on a scale of four levels) • Attitudes toward the majority culture/congruence (measured as per-ceived similarity of the native and majority cultures on a scale of four levels) • Ethnic background (measured as ethnic background of four grandpar-ents) • Ethnic identity (measured as self-identification—Russian, Estonian, other) In this research, social dominance was examined through the Russian-speaking respondents' perceptions of how Estonians view the Russian speak-ers (as superior, equal, or inferior), and enclosure was considered as existing contact or wish for contact (on a four-point scale) with the majority popu-lation. Integration strategy was investigated by actualized integration, that is, by citizenship and second-language proficiency. Citizenship was measured by selection among the options of Russian, Estonian, and "other," and Estonian language proficiency was determined by self-categorization on a five-point scale. Length of residence (in years) was used as a variable instead of length of intended residence because of extremely low back migration of non-Estonians after the mid 1990s (Kirch 2001). Attitude toward the first language was measured as perceived importance of the Russian language in the future in Estonian society, indicated by a ranking order (1–5). Attitude toward the second language was measured by a perceived value of the Estonian language (on a scale of four levels). Attitude toward the native culture was measured by having respon-dents indicate their perception of the importance of Russian culture main-tenance (on a four-point scale). In this research, the variable attitudes toward the majority culture was fused with congruence, or perceived similarity of Estonian and Russian cultures, and it was measured on a four-point scale. Ethnic back-ground was determined by the origin of four grandparents, and ethnic identity by the options of Russian, Estonian, and "other." A total of 445 questionnaires were distributed through teachers to stu-dents, who took them home to their parents and later returned the completed surveys to their teachers. Altogether 346 were completed and returned, for an overall response rate of 78 percent. Table 1 shows the sample sizes by town and by school type, with the response rates given in parentheses. Russian-language schools are typically described as more regulating and controlling than Estonian-language and bilingual schools (Vihalemm 1998), which might explain the higher response rates of Russian over Estonian schools. Many students in the Estonian school in Narva were sick during the research period, which may explain that school's low response rate (54 percent). In addition, Comparative Education Review 105 LANGUAGE OF INSTRUCTION FOR RUSSIAN-SPEAKING CHILDREN IN ESTONIA TABLE 1 Sample Size by Town and School Type (Response Rates in Parentheses) Town School Type Estonian Russian Bilingual Total Tallinn 59 (63%) 42 (93%) 20 (83%) 121 (74%) Tartu 19 (83%) 41 (79%) 49 (82%) 109 (81%) Narva 20 (54%) 45 (82%) 51 (93%) 116 (79%) Total 98 (64%) 128 (84%) 120 (86%) 346 (78%) this particular school has been a regular site for research, because it is the only Estonian-speaking school in the town—another factor which may have lowered the parental response rate. Data Analysis The 11 variables originally theorized to influence parental choice is a large number compared to the sample size of 346 respondents; thus the multiway contingency table showed lack of data in many cells, and the factors could not be examined in a single model. A screening process was needed, so bivariate analyses were conducted to cull down the list of "significant" variables (using .05 as the significance level for chi-square). Several explan-atory variables were dealt with, and further limitation occurred through grouping the factors and thus screening for redundancies (Ramsey and Schafer 1997). Both theoretical and statistical elements were involved as the variables were grouped into meaningful categories by general themes or similarities based on the theoretical construct. The themes were language, culture, and ethnicity. The interaction of variables was tested to determine if any of the effects would be moderated or eliminated after adjusting for other variables. Polytomous logistic regression was employed to examine the grouped models of variables. At the final stage of the analysis, the remaining significant variables were modeled together by polytomous logistic regression, because the response variable—choice between Russian-language schools, Estonian-language schools, and bilingual programs—was a categorical variable with three levels. The regression coefficients are interpreted as log-odds ratios. Choice of a Russian school was used as a reference category in modeling the odds; that is, the models were based on the odds of parents choosing a bilingual program over a Russian school or an Estonian school over a Russian school. This process helped in recognizing redundancies and identifying central variables. However, the screening process and the special characteristics of the surveyed population might have eliminated relevant variables that should be included in research examining choice of language of instruction further in other geographic contexts. 106 February 2008 KEMPPAINEN, FERRIN, HITE, AND HILTON TABLE 2 Demographics of Respondents (n p 346) Demographic Categories Percentage Age 38 years (average) Gender Female 81 Male 19 Education Basic 6 High school and vocational 66 College 28 Occupation Professional/managerial 38 Technical, sales 21 Service sector 9 Production 19 Operators, fabricators 11 Unemployed 1.5 Income Under EEK 30,000 12 EEK 30,000–59,999 27 EEK 60,000–120,000 24 Over EEK 120,000 5 Length of residence Under 15 years 6 15–30 years 35 Over 30 years 58 Citizenship Russian 12 Estonian 63 Other 24 Estonian fluency None 24 Some 34 Fair 18 Good 16 Excellent 8 Ethnic background No Russian 19 One-quarter Russian 5 One-half Russian 21 Three-quarters Russian 16 All Russian 38 One-quarter Estonian 10 One-half to all Estonian 13 One-half to all other background 22 Ethnic identity Russian 81 Estonian 7 Other 12 Results Participant Demographics As described in table 2, one-third of the parents did not disclose their family income. Most of those who did disclose indicated annual incomes between EEK (Estonian kroons) 30,000 and 120,000 (US$1,765–$7,058), while gross domestic product and gross national income per capita in Estonia was $4,381 in 2001 (ESA Statistikaamet 2003);15 only a small percentage had incomes above EEK 120,000. Over half the respondents had been born in Estonia or had lived there for more than 30 years; 43 percent had been born 15 Using the Bank of Estonia currency rates calculator found at http://quote.ibs.ee/valuutad .cgi?datep01.12.2001. Comparative Education Review 107 LANGUAGE OF INSTRUCTION FOR RUSSIAN-SPEAKING CHILDREN IN ESTONIA outside Estonia. Nearly two-thirds of respondents had Estonian citizenship (63 percent). Although all the respondents were Russian speakers, one-fifth were not of Russian ethnic background (most were Ukrainian, Belarusian, Estonian, Finnish/Karelian, or Polish), and slightly less than 40 percent were fully Russian. Nearly one-fourth of these Russian-speaking respondents had some Estonian ethnic background. The category of "other," which included one-fifth of the respondents, refers to ethnic background other than Russian or Estonian. Despite their diverse ethnic backgrounds, 81 percent classified themselves with Russian identity: only 7 percent classified themselves with Estonian identity, and 12 percent categorized themselves as having some other ethnic identity. Table 2 presents the demographic profile of the respondents. In describing the respondents, it is important to include their perceptions of ethnic relations and of culture and language attitudes. A significant 83 percent of the respondents think that Russians are considered inferior by Estonians. Only 23 percent of responding parents have contact with Estonian speakers or strongly wish for contact, 57 percent wish for contact, and 19 percent do not particularly wish for contact. Attitudes toward the first lan-guage vary, from seeing Russian as the most or second most important lan-guage in Estonia (39 percent) to seeing Russian as in third to fifth place (45 percent); 16 percent of the Russian speakers surveyed did not consider Rus-sian to have any place among the languages important to the future of Estonia. Attitudes toward the second language vary from highly or very highly valuing Estonian (68 percent total) to not at all or only slightly valuing Estonian (32 percent). Russian speakers find maintaining Russian culture either important (84 percent) or very important (16 percent). And 74 percent of the parents perceived Estonian and Russian cultures to be dissimilar or very dissimilar. Sociocultural Variables In the bivariate analyses all but two of the variables, length of residence and cultural congruence, were significantly related to choice of language of instruction.16 There was little variation among respondents in length of res-idence (respondents tended to have lived in Estonia for a fairly long time) and cultural congruence (Russian speakers were able to cope in their daily activities using the Russian language), and this likely impacted the nonsig-nificant results. In the grouped analyses three more variables failed to show significance: citizenship, social dominance, and perceived importance of Rus-sian language. With limitations resulting from a small number of responses compared to a large number of variables, the remaining variables (fluency in Estonian, perceived value of Estonian language, perceived importance of Russian cul-ture maintenance, ethnicity, ethnic identity, contact/wish for contact) could 16 Table A1 in the appendix presents results of bivariate analysis of sociocultural variables and the dependent variable, parental choice of language of instruction for their child, by type of school. 108 February 2008 KEMPPAINEN, FERRIN, HITE, AND HILTON TABLE 3 Final Model of Variables Related to Choice of Language of Instruction Term Log Odds Ratio SE X2 p-value Odds Ratio Significant variables explaining choice of language of instruction/bilingual school: Estonian fluency (from some to excellent) 2.04 .30 .45 .50 .82 Ethnicity (other) .10 .37 .07 .79 .91 Ethnicity (50% or more Estonian) .61 .54 1.29 .26 1.85 Ethnicity (25% Estonian) .83 .53 2.44 .12 2.30 Value of Estonian (high/very high) .63 .29 4.81 .03 1.87 Russian culture maintenance (very important) .12 .43 .07 .79 .89 Russian culture maintenance (important) .32 .34 .86 .35 1.37 Significant variables explaining choice of language of instruction/Estonian school: Estonian fluency (some to excellent) .97 .46 4.50 .03 2.64 Ethnicity (other) .01 .42 .00 .97 .99 Ethnicity (50% or more Estonian) 1.73 .52 10.94 .0009 5.65 Ethnicity (25% Estonian) 1.47 .56 6.87 .008 4.37 Value of Estonian (high/very high) 2.22 .45 24.48 .0001 9.18 Russian culture maintenance (very important) 1.20 .53 5.11 .02 .30 Russian culture maintenance (important) .33 .37 .79 .38 .72 not be analyzed together but first had to be analyzed in two sets of five variables.17 Ethnic identity and contact/wish for contact were not found to be significant in this stage of the analysis. All other variables, being signifi-cantly related to choice of language of instruction (p ≤ .05), were included in the final analysis. Table 3 presents the results of the final model, in which the remaining significant variables were combined and analyzed together. In the final model with four variables (fluency in Estonian, ethnicity, perceived value of Estonian language, and perceived importance of Russian culture maintenance), only the perceived value of Estonian language was significant in explaining the choice of a bilingual program over a Russian-language school. However, all these variables were significant in explaining the choice of an Estonian over a Russian-language school. The perceived value of Estonian language had the strongest relation to the choice of an Estonian-language school, with the odds ratio of 9.18. Thus, the likelihood 17 Initially, the variables fluency in Estonian; perceived value of Estonian language; and perceived importance of Russian culture maintenance, ethnicity, and ethnic identity were tested together, leaving out contact/wish for contact. In this analysis, all other variables remained significant except for identity. In the second round, fluency in Estonian, perceived value of Estonian language, perceived importance of Russian culture maintenance, ethnicity, and contact/wish for contact were tested together, leaving out ethnic identity. In this analysis all other variables remained significant except for wish for contact. Although perceived importance of Russian culture maintenance was at the borderline (.05), it was included in the final model. Comparative Education Review 109 LANGUAGE OF INSTRUCTION FOR RUSSIAN-SPEAKING CHILDREN IN ESTONIA of choosing an Estonian school over a Russian school was nine times higher for parents who valued the Estonian language highly or very highly in com-parison to those who valued it only slightly or not at all. The likelihood of choosing a bilingual program over a Russian school was nearly twice as high for parents who valued Estonian highly or very highly compared to parents who valued Estonian language only slightly or not at all. It appears that to be motivated to have one's children learn a second language, one has to perceive the language as a desirable or necessary competence. Ethnicity was a significant variable explaining the choice of an Estonian over a Russian-language school, with the odds ratio of 5.65. Parents with at least 50 percent Estonian background were five and a half times more likely to choose Estonian schools over Russian schools than those with mostly Rus-sian and no Estonian background. Even those with 25 percent Estonian back-ground were four times as likely to choose Estonian schools as parents without Estonian background. The results indicate that the ethnic backgrounds of individuals within a minority group influence the language behavior of these individuals, such as choice of language of instruction for their children. Perceived importance of Russian culture maintenance was also significant in explaining choice of language of instruction. Parents who ascribed a high level of importance to maintaining Russian culture were one-third less likely to choose an Estonian school over a Russian school compared to parents who did not perceive maintaining the Russian culture to be very important. The fourth significant variable in explaining choice of language of in-struction was parents' reported fluency in Estonian, with the odds ratio of 2.64. Parents with at least some level of fluency in Estonian were two and a half times more likely to choose Estonian schools than parents not fluent in the Estonian language. Thus, in choosing a school language for one's child, parents perceive their own proficiency in the second language as critical.18 Discussion This research investigated the association of several sociocultural variables with parental choice of language of instruction. Because the choice of lan-guage of instruction is not widely explored in theoretical terms, this research 18 In addition, this study tested statistically the language and culture orientation categories iden-tified in the qualitative study by Kemppainen et al. (2004) in which the categories were based on given orientation statements. Table A2 in the appendix displays the results of the bivariate analysis of the self-assigned culture and language orientation categories and their association to different levels of choice. In this testing, Russian schools were used as the reference group, and the parental orientation categories were compared to the parents with Russian orientation. Although no significant association was found between the categories of parental orientations and the choice of bilingual programs over Russian schools, the multicultural, bicultural, and Estonian orientations were significantly associated with the choice of Estonian schools over Russian schools (p p .0001, .004, and .0001, respectively), meaning that if parents associate themselves either with many languages and cultures, with both Estonian and Russian languages and cultures, or with Estonian language and culture, they are more likely to choose Estonian-language schools than parents who associate themselves with Russian language and culture. 110 February 2008 KEMPPAINEN, FERRIN, HITE, AND HILTON and its findings contribute significantly to the body of literature on this phenomenon. The variables used to build the initial model were drawn mostly from literature on second-language acquisition that could be applied to the context of choosing language of instruction as well. The initial model was informed by Schumann's (1978, 1986) accultura-tion theory of second-language acquisition and a qualitative study conducted by Kemppainen and colleagues (2004) that focused on identifying prelimi-nary variables related to parental choice of language of instruction. The results of the research revealed language variables related to both integration and attitudes. Ethnic background and other culture variables were also shown to be important in building a model of choice of language of instruction. Parents' own second-language proficiency was found to influence the type of school they chose for their children, supporting the importance of integration strategy in language behavior, as suggested by Schumann (1978, 1986). The higher parents' proficiency in Estonian, the more likely they were to choose Estonian schools over Russian schools. However, this association was not observed in the choice of bilingual programs over Russian schools. In Estonian-speaking schools Estonian is the medium of instruction, whereas the bilingual programs instruct in both Estonian and Russian. U¨ lle Rannut's (2005) research similarly indicates that second-language proficiency is connected with the choice of language of instruction among Russian-speaking parents. According to her research, in Tallinn (in which nearly half the inhabitants are Russian speakers) parents whose children attend Estonian-language schools all spoke at least some Estonian, whereas 20 percent of parents with children in Russian-language schools reported that they knew no Estonian. In Russian-language-dominated Eastern Estonia only 6 percent of parents with children in Estonian-language schools did not speak Estonian at all, while nearly 71 percent of parents with children in Russian-speaking schools did not speak any Estonian. The results of both this research and Rannut's follow-up study strongly suggest that parents' fluency in the second language influences their desire to send their children to a school that uses the second language as the sole medium of instruction. However, in putting their children in bilingual pro-grams, parents may not have to consider such issues. For a language-of-education policy, this finding may have important implications. Parents' lack of second-language proficiency may raise serious educational concerns, such as, for example, their inability to help with homework or to interact fully in the school community. The results indicate an important difference between bilingual programs and education in the second language, highlighting the attraction of bilingual programs to parents who speak only their native language. Attitudes toward the native culture also appear to be important in parents' choice of language of instruction for their children's schooling. The parents Comparative Education Review 111 LANGUAGE OF INSTRUCTION FOR RUSSIAN-SPEAKING CHILDREN IN ESTONIA who consider Russian culture maintenance very important tend to send their children to Russian-language schools. Choosing education in the family's first language reflects the parents' desire to maintain the family culture. The findings of the current research support the findings by Kemppainen and colleagues (2004), who demonstrated that parents with different culture and language orientations choose language of instruction differently. Discussion on motivation to learn a language often emphasizes two mo-tives mentioned by Gardner and Lambert (1972): instrumental and integra-tive. In this research, we found evidence that a nonintegrative or cultural motive—that is, desire to maintain ones' own culture—affects choice of lan-guage of instruction children's schooling. Parents may send their children to a school providing instruction in the first language as a way of passing on the native culture in addition to a sense of belonging to the extended family and its origins. As Fernand de Varennes (1995–96, 107) put it, "language is often central to feelings of community and culture, of tradition and belong-ing." Cultural maintenance may be perceived as an important foundation for cultural identity, which may impact success in school (Cummins 1982) as well as in the cultural community. This relationship should not be ignored in language-of-instruction policies and practices. Although language use and language-based school choice are complex phenomena involving many factors, and some claim that ethnicity may not be the primary factor in language use (Ozolins 1996), this research indicates that parents' ethnic background significantly influences their language of instruction preferences for their children. Ethnicity has deep meaning for many families; however, the significance of ethnic affiliation has not been given weight in language policy discussion. Additionally, the results of this study demonstrate the complexity of ethnic composition among a minority group sharing a language. Unfortunately, language minorities are typically perceived as homogeneous groups with the same ethnic backgrounds, iden-tities, interests, and needs. For example, the Spanish-speaking students in the United Sates are often perceived as one group without careful attention to the many special circumstances and affiliations (e.g., Californian, Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican) of the student. This oversimplification is damaging to educational practice as well as cultural dispositions. This research suggests that to address the needs of minority language students, the one-size-fits-all approach is not adequate. Even though the population may be speaking the same language (e.g., Russian), families may differ with respect to their ethnic background (including having grandparents with a mixture of different na-tional origins). It is not surprising that attitude toward the second language (the per-ceived value of the second language) is the variable in the model that has the strongest impact on parents' choice of language of instruction for their children. Schumann's model (1978, 1986) suggests intergroup attitudes as a 112 February 2008 KEMPPAINEN, FERRIN, HITE, AND HILTON powerful influence for second-language learning. In addition,U¨ lle Rannut's (2005) follow-up research, which tested some of the findings of the present study, indicates that valuing the second language correlates with choosing to educate one's children in the second language. According to her research in linguistically segregated Tallinn, 33 percent of parents whose children attend Estonian-language schools consider the Estonian language to be very important, while none of the parents who had placed their children in Rus-sian- language schools value Estonian as highly. Although being able to com-municate in the dominant language of a nation appears critical for all stu-dents, the question arises whether exclusive language policies observed in many parts of the world contribute to valuing the nationally dominant lan-guage or whether policies allowing some choices are more successful in im-proving language dispositions. Estonia faces the challenge of encouraging second-language learning for all Russian-speaking children in today's language environment while simul-taneously supporting their native culture maintenance. Language choice is a multifaceted phenomenon not amenable to simple solutions. However, Estonian language-of-instruction policy, allowing schooling alternatives for Russian speakers' children, can provide for the needs of families with differing lifestyles and orientations. Conclusions This study identified several relevant variables related to choice of lan-guage of instruction, a topic where research is nearly nonexistent. It was hypothesized that Estonian citizenship would predict choice of Estonian schools; however, citizenship was not found to be significantly related to language-of-instruction choice when controlling for ethnicity and ethnic iden-tity. Additionally, the perceived importance of Russian language was not found to be significantly related to choice of Russian-language schools, when other language-related variables (such as perceptions of Estonian fluency and Es-tonian value) were included in the equation.19 And our measure of social dominance was not found to be significantly related to language-of-instruction choice when adjusted for a set of culture-related variables (such as Russian culture maintenance), although it was expected that perceptions of equality with Estonians would predict choice of Estonian-language schools. Of the variables that did not have a significant relationship with language-of- instruction choice in the final modeling, ethnic identity clearly exhibited 19 Perhaps the wording of the variable concerning importance of Russian language ("the impor-tance of Russian language in Estonian society in the future") and the variable of Estonian value con-cerned two sides of the same issue, suggesting that someone who did not see a use for Russian valued Estonian, and therefore the variables were highly correlated. If the question regarding the variable had been formulated to reflect the respondents' personal views on the importance of the Russian language, the variable might have remained significant. Comparative Education Review 113 LANGUAGE OF INSTRUCTION FOR RUSSIAN-SPEAKING CHILDREN IN ESTONIA redundancy with ethnicity and also with native culture maintenance. Contact/ wish for contact with Estonians was hypothesized to be related with choice of Estonian schools. The effect of this variable, however, was apparently di-minished by controlling for other sociocultural variables (e.g., Estonian flu-ency and Estonian values). Although sociocultural variables are widely recognized as critical in sec-ond- language acquisition (Cummins 1982, 2000; Krashen 1996), they are not sufficiently incorporated into language-of-instruction policies in many coun-tries. As suggested by this research, understanding the language preferences of parents and children is critical in forming language-of-instruction policies. Further research is needed to investigate whether parental sociocultural and attitudinal variables transfer across contexts and predict choice of language of instruction more universally. Estonian policies and options regarding Russian speakers, like those for Swedish speakers in Finland, offer some language-of-instruction choices for a minority group that speaks its own native language. Both of these popu-lations, however, represent languages groups that were formerly dominant. Families of other language minority cultures (e.g., Turks in Germany and Latinos in the United States) also need options for language of instruction that respond to their preferences and needs. Parents' concerns relating to language and culture may well be more pronounced under circumstances where educational language policies are forceful, as in the United States and Germany. In such places, majoritarian processes are widely utilized in determining language-of-instruction policies and immigrant issues. Although research in education and the social sciences tends to support bilingualism in the U.S. school system (e.g., Ovando and Collier 1998; Krashen and McField 2005), the trend has been to discourage it—as evidenced in banning of bilingual education in some states. Conversely, in Germany the rising trend of openly discussing language of instruction at the political level, including support for multilingualism (Beck 2003; Bru¨ntink 2003), is encouraging. Appendix TABLE A1 Sociocultural Variables and Their Significance Related to Choice of Language of Instruction Variable Levels of Variable DF x2 p-value Social dominance Inferior, equal (superior)* 2 10.51 .005 Contact/wish for contact with Estonians Have contact/strongly wish, wish, do not wish particularly (do not wish at all)* 4 19.50 .0006 Citizenship Russian, Estonian, other 4 20.81 .00003 Estonian fluency None, some/fair, good/excellent 4 24.67 .0001 Length of residence 0–15 years, 15–30 years, 30 years 4 3.82 .43 114 February 2008 KEMPPAINEN, FERRIN, HITE, AND HILTON TABLE A1 (Continued) Variable Levels of Variable DF x2 p-value Importance of Russian language 1–2, 3–5, not listed 4 14.69 .005 Estonian language value Not/slightly, high/very high 2 45.00 .0001 Russian culture maintenance Very unimportant/unimportant/ important, very important 2 6.15 .046 Cultural similarity Very dissimilar, dissimilar, similar (very similar)* 4 4.02 .40 Ethnic background (mostly Russian) 0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 100% 8 30.57 .0002 Ethnic background (mostly Estonian) 0%, 25%, 50%–100% 4 29.23 .0001 Ethnic background (mostly other) 0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 100% 8 8.22 .41 Ethnic identity Russian, Estonian, other 4 47.80 .0001 *The variable levels in parentheses were omitted before the analysis because there were fewer than six responses in them. TABLE A2 Association of the Choice of Language of Instruction with Parental Culture/Language Orientation Categories Orientation SE x2 p-value Choice of bilingual program over Russian school: Multicultural orientation .57 2.20 .14 Bicultural orientation .33 2.33 .13 Estonian orientation .57 .71 .40 Choice of Estonian school over Russian school: Multicultural orientation .64 15.37 .0001 Bicultural orientation .48 8.39 .004 Estonian orientation .61 18.94 .0001 References August, Diane, and Kenji Hakuta, eds. 1997. Improving Schooling for Language-Mi-nority Children: A Research Agenda. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Beck, Marieluise. 2003. "Grusswort" (Greeting). In Fo¨rderung von Migranten und Migrantinnen im Elementar- und Primabereich (Support for immigrants in elemen-tary and primary areas). Documentation from Berlin symposium, March 7, 2003. Berlin: Bundersregierung fu¨ r Migration, Flu¨chtlinge und Integration (Federal administration for immigration, refugees, and integration). Bru¨ntink, Corinna. 2003. "Bildungspolitische Aspekte der Fo¨rderung von Kindern and Jugendlichen mit Migrationshintergrund aus bildungspolitischer Sicht" (Ed-ucational politics aspects of support for children and adolescents with immigrant background from a view of educational politics). In Fo¨rderung von Migranten und Migrantinnen im Elementar- und Primabereich (Support for immigrants in elemen-tary and primary areas). Documentation from Berlin symposium, March 7, 2003. Berlin: Bundersregierung fu¨ r Migration, Flu¨chtlinge und Integration (Federal administration for immigration, refugees, and integration). Capotorti, Francesco. 1977. "Study on the Rights of Persons Belonging to Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities." United Nations document E/CN.4/Sub.2/ 384/Add.1-7. United Nations, New York. Comparative Education Review 115 LANGUAGE OF INSTRUCTION FOR RUSSIAN-SPEAKING CHILDREN IN ESTONIA Cummins, Jim. 1982. "The Role of Primary Language Development in Promoting Educational Success for Language Minority Students." In California State Depart-ment of Education, Office of Bilingual Bicultural Education, Schooling and Language Minority Students: A Theoretical Framework. Los Angeles: California State University, Evaluation, Dissemination and Assessment Center. Cummins, Jim. 2000. "Beyond Adversarial Discourse: Searching for Common Ground in the Education of Bilingual Students." In The Politics of Multicultural and Bilingual Education: Students and Teachers Caught in the Cross Fire, ed. C. J. Ovando and P. McLaren. Boston: McGraw-Hill. de Varennes, Fernand. 1995–96. "The Protection of Linguistic Minorities in Europe and Human Rights: Possible Solutions to Ethnic Conflicts?" Columbia Journal of European Law 2 (Fall/Winter): 107–43. ESA Statistikaamet. 2003. Database, http://pub.stat.ee/px-web.2001/I_Databas/ Economy/Economy.asp: main national accounts indicators; gross domestic prod-uct and gross national income (gross national product) per capita, kroons, euros, US dollars; gross national product at current prices per capita, US dollars. ESA Statistikaamet. 2005. Database, http://pub.stat.ee/px-web.2001/Database/ Rahvaloendus/Rahvaloendus.asp; path: Rahvus. Emakeel. Vo˜o˜rkeelteoskus (Na-tionality. First language. Knowledge of foreign languages); Rahvastik elukoha ja rahvuse ja¨rgi (Population according to residence and nationality); Rahvastik rahvuse, emakeele ja kodakondsuse ja¨rgi (Population according to nationality, first language and citizenship). Estonian Ministry of Education. 1997. Education in Estonia: Present Situation and Developments, July 1996. Tallinn: Estonian Ministry of Education. Fowler, Floyd J. 1993. Survey Research Methods. Vol. 1. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Gardner, Robert C., andWallace E. Lambert. 1972. Attitudes and Motivation in Second- Language Learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Glenn, Charles L. 1997. "What Does the National Research Council Study Tell Us about Educating Language Minority Children?" READ Perspectives 4 (Fall): 66–95. Gogolin, Ingrid. 2003. "Gleiche Bildungschancen fu¨r Kinder mit Migrationshinter-grund— mo¨glich auch in Deutschland?" (Equal educational opportunities for children with immigrant background—is it possible in Germany as well?). In Fo¨rderung von Migranten und Migrantinnen im Elementar- und Primabereich (Support for immigrants in elementary and primary areas). Documentation from Berlin symposium, March 7, 2003. Berlin: Bundersregierung fu¨r Migration, Flu¨chtlinge und Integration (Federal administration for immigration, refugees, and inte-gration). Hebenstreit-Mu¨ ller, Sabine. 2003. "Begru¨ssung" (Welcoming address). In Fo¨rderung von Migranten und Migrantinnen im Elementar- und Primabereich (Support for im-migrants in elementary and primary areas). Documentation from Berlin sym-posium, March 7, 2003. Berlin: Bundersregierung fu¨r Migration, Flu¨chtlinge und Integration (Federal administration for immigration, refugees, and integration). Issakov, Sergei. 1999. "Venelased" (The Russians). In Eesti rahvaste raamat: Rahvus-vahemused, -rumad ja-killud (Estonian nationalities book: National minorities, groups, and fragments), ed. J. Viikberg. Tallinn: Eesti Entu¨klopeediakirjastus. Joppke, Christian. 1996. "Multiculturalism and Immigration: A Comparison of 116 February 2008 KEMPPAINEN, FERRIN, HITE, AND HILTON the United States, Germany, and Great Britain." Theory and Society 25 (August). http://www.springerlink.com/content/l800871577132122/. Kalter, Frank, and Nadia Granato. 2002. "Ethnic Minorities' Education and Oc-cupational Attainment: The Case of Germany." Working Paper no. 58, Mann-heimer Zentrum fu¨r Europa¨ische Sozialforschung, Mannheim. http://www.mzes .uni-mannheim.de/publications/wp/wp-58.pdf. Katus, Kalev, Marek Kupiszewski, Philip Rees, Luule Sakkeus, Anne Herm, and David Powell. 1998. Internal Migration and Regional Population Dynamics in Europe: Estonia Case Study. Working Paper no. 98/14, Estonian Interuniversity Population Research Center, Tallinn. http://www.geog.leeds.ac.uk/wpapers/98-14.pdf. Kemppainen, Raija, and Scott E. Ferrin. 2002. "Parental Choice and Language-of- Instruction Policies and Practices in Estonia." Education and Urban Society 35 (1): 76–99. Kemppainen, Raija, Scott E. Ferrin, Carol J. Ward, and Julie M. Hite. 2004. "One Should Not Forget One's Mother Tongue: Russian-Speaking Parents' Choice of Language of Instruction in Estonia." Bilingual Research Journal 28 (2): 207–29. Kionka, Riina, and Raivo Vetik. 1996. "Estonia and the Estonians." In The Nation-alities Question in the Post-Soviet States, ed. G. Smith. London: Longman. Kirch, Aksel. 1999. "Eesti etniline koosseis" (Estonian ethnic composition). In Eesti rahvaste raamat: Rahvusvahemused, -rumad ja-killud (Estonian nationalities book: National minorities, groups, and fragments), ed. J. Viikberg. Tallinn: Eesti Entu¨klopeediakirjastus. Kirch, Aksel. 2001. "Estonian Report on Russian Minority." Institute for European Studies, Tallin. http://www.ies.ee/kirchrus.pdf. Kirch, Marika, Aksel Kirch, Ilvi Rimm, and Tarmo Tuisk. 1997. "Integration Pro-cesses in Estonia, 1993–1996." In The Integration of Non-Estonians into Estonian Society: History, Problems, and Trends, ed. A. Kirch. Tallinn: Estonian Academy. Krashen, Stephen D. 1996. Under Attack: The Case against Bilingual Education. Culver City, CA: Language Education Associates. Krashen, Stephen, and Grace McField. 2005. "What Works: Reviewing the Latest Evidence on Bilingual Education." National Association of Bilingual Educators, Language Learner (November/December). http://users.rcn.com/crawj/langpol/ Krashen-McField.pdf. Kunnas, Kaja. 2004. "Kolmannes Viron vena¨la¨isnuorist ei halua opiskella viroa" (One-third of Russian youth in Estonia do not want to study Estonian). Helsingin Sanomat, October 5. Lainio, Jarmo. 2001. "The Protection and Rejection of Minority and Majority Lan-guages in the Swedish School System." In Managing Multilingualism in a European Nation-State: Challenges for Sweden, ed. S. Boyd and L. Huss, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Laitin, David D. 1996. "Language and Nationalism in the Post-Soviet Republics." Post-Soviet Affairs 12 (1): 4–24. Landry, Rodrique, and Re´al Allard. 1985. "Choix de la langue d'enseignement: Une analyse chez des parents francophones en milieu bilingue soustractif" (Choice of the language of instruction: An analysis of Francophone parents in a subtractive bilingual milieu). Canadian Modern Language Review 41 (3): 480–500. Language Immersion Centre. 2006a. "Major Program Achievements." http:// Comparative Education Review 117 LANGUAGE OF INSTRUCTION FOR RUSSIAN-SPEAKING CHILDREN IN ESTONIA www.kke.ee/index.php?langpeng&pages_IDp29&menus_IDp13&active_link_ IDp86&marp0. Language Immersion Centre. 2006b. "Language Immersion." http://www.kke.ee/ index.php?langpeng&pages_IDp174&menus_IDp1&active_link_I. Language Immersion Centre. 2006c. "Kindergartens and Schools." http://www .kke.ee/index.php?langpeng&menus_IDp6&pages_IDp6&markp0. Mets, Elle. 2004. "Keel ja U¨ hiskond: Erakondade Suhtumine Keeleku¨simusse." In Eesti Keel: Voorkeelest teiseks Keeleks, ed. M. Rannut. Tallinn: Tallinn Pedagogical University. Neuman, W. Lawrence. 1994. Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. 2nd ed. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Opetushallitus (Finnish National Board of Education). 2004. "Maahanmuuttajaop-pilaiden perusopetukseen valmistava opetus ja perusopetus syyslukukaudella 2003" (Immigrant students' preparatory education to basic education and basic education in the fall semester of 2003). Report, National Board of Education, Finland, April 3. Østergaard-Nielsen, Eva. 2003. Transnational Politics: Turks and Kurds in Germany. London: Routledge. Ovando, Carlos J., and Virginia P. Collier. 1998. Bilingual and ESL Classrooms: Teach-ing in Multicultural Contexts. 2nd ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill. Ozolins, Uldis. 1996. "Language Policy and Political Reality." International Journal of the Sociology of Language 118:181–200. Ozolins, Uldis. 2000. "Between Russian and European Hegemony: Current Lan-guage Policy in the Baltic States." In Language Policy and Language Issues in the Successor States of the Former USSR, ed. S. Wright. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Pavelson, Marje. 2000. "Haridus ja haridustaotlused" (Education and aspirations for education). In Integration of Estonian Society: Monitoring 2000. Tallinn: Institute of International and Social Studies. Pettai, Iris, and Ivi Proos. 1999. Kooliarendus: Kutse dialoogile (School progress: A call for dialogue). Vol. 4. Kool ja integrasioon: Integratsioon ja kool (School inte-gration: Integration and school). Tallinn: Haridusministeerium Eesti Avatud U¨ hiskonna Institut. Radzevich, Y. 2004. Minister of Education and Science, press release, April 30. Ramsey, Fred, and Daniel W. Schafer. 1997. The Statistical Sleuth: A Course in Methods of Data Analysis. Belmont, CA: Duxbury Press. Rannut, Mart. 1991. "Beyond Linguistic Policy: The Soviet Union versus Estonia." Roskilde University Center, Roskilde. ERIC Document Reproduction Service no. ED 352 803. Rannut, Mart. 2001. "Estonian Language Policy in the 1990s." In Tutkielmia va¨hem-misto ¨kielista¨ Ja¨a¨merelta¨ Liivinrantaan: Vahemmisto¨kielten tutkimus ja koulutusverkoston raportti (Research on minority languages from the Polar Sea to the shores of Livonia: A report by the research and education network on minority languages), ed. M. Mikkonen, H. Sulkala, and H. Mantila. Oulu: University of Oulu. Rannut, Mart. 2004a. Language Planning in Estonia: Past and Present. Barcelona: Escarre´ International Centre for Ethnic Minorities and Nations. Rannut, Mart. 2004b. "Language Policy in Estonia." Noves SL: Revista de Sociolin- 118 February 2008 KEMPPAINEN, FERRIN, HITE, AND HILTON gu¨ı´stica (Spring-Summer). http://www6.gencat.net/llengcat/noves/hm04prima vera-estiu/docs/rannut.pdf. Rannut, Mart, and U¨ lle Rannut. 1995. "Bilingualism—a Step toward Monolin-gualism or Multiculturalism?" In Multilingualism for All, ed. T. Skutnabb-Kangas. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger. Rannut, U¨ lle. 2005. Keelekeskkonna mo˜ju vene o˜ppilaste eesti keele omandamisele ja in-tegratsioonile Eestis (Impact of the language environment on integration and Es-tonian- language acquisition of Russian-speaking children in Estonia). Tallinn: TLU¨ kirjastus. Riiklik eksami-ja kvalifikatsioonikeskus. 2006. "Riigieksamite statistikaaruanneeg 77–02/2005: Eksamitulemuste statistika (o˜ppekeel)" (Statistical report of na-tional exams: Statistics of exam results [language of instruction]). http:// www.ekk.edu.ee/statistika/riigieksamid/gymnaasium/2005/yld/kaust/eg77_02 .html. Schumann, John H. 1978. "The Acculturation Model for Second-Language Ac-quisition." In Second-Language Acquisition and Foreign Language Teaching, ed. R. C. Gingras. Arlington, VA: Center for Applied Linguistics. Schumann, John H. 1986. "Research on the Acculturation Model for Second Lan-guage Acquisition." Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 7 (5): 379–92. Smith, David J. 1998. "Russia, Estonia and the Search for Stable Ethnopolitics." Journal of Baltic Studies 29 (1): 3–18. Smith, Graham, Vivien Law, Andrew Wilson, Annette Bohr, and Edward Allworth. 1998. Nation-Building in the Post-Soviet Borderlands: The Politics of National Identities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Titma, Mikk, Nancy Brandon Tuma, and Brian D. Silver. 1998. "Winners and Losers in the Postcommunist Transition: New Evidence from Estonia." Post-Soviet Affairs 14 (2): 114–36. Tuomela, V. (2001). "Tva°spra°kig utveckling i skola°ldern: En ja¨mfo¨relse av sveri-gefinska elever i tre undervisningsmodeller" (Bilingual development at school age: A comparison of Sweden Finns in three teaching models). Dissertation, University of Stockholm. Vallens, Dagmara. 1995. "The Law of Aliens Controversy in the Baltic States." Review: International Commission of Jurists 54 ( June): 1–28. Vassiltshenko, Larissa, Tiia Pedastsaar, Maie Soll, Ulve Kala, and Silvia Kera. 1998. "Venekeelse kooli erinevate mudelitega seotud ootused ja kartused haritussub-jektide seas" (Expectations and concerns regarding different models in Russian-speaking schools among educational actors). In Mitmekultuuriline Eesti: Va¨ljakutse haridusele (Multicultural Estonia: A challenge for education), ed. M. Lauristin, S. Vare, T. Pedastsaar, and M. Pavelson. Tartu: Tartu U¨ likool. Veidemann, Andra. 1999. "Eesti rahvus- ja rahvastikupoliitika" (Estonian ethnicity and population politics). In Eesti rahvaste raamat: Rahvusva¨hemused, -ru¨mad ja -killud (Estonian nationalities book: National minorities, groups, and fragments), ed. J. Viikberg. Tallinn: Eesti Entsu¨klopeediakirjastus. Vetik, R. 1993. "Ethnic Conflict and Accommodation in Post-Communist Estonia." Journal of Peace Research 30 (3): 271–80. Comparative Education Review 119 LANGUAGE OF INSTRUCTION FOR RUSSIAN-SPEAKING CHILDREN IN ESTONIA Vetik, Raivo. 1999. Inter-ethnic Relations in Estonia, 1988–1998. Tampere: University of Finland. Vihalemm, Triin. 1997. "Kodu materiaalsed ressursid ja vene noorte integratsiooni perspektiivid" (Family material resources and perspectives of Russian youth in-tegration). In Vene noored Eestis: Sotsioloogilige mosaiik (Russian youth in Estonia: A sociological mosaic), ed. P. Ja¨rve. Tallinn: Avita. Vihalemm, Triin. 1998. "Eesti kool kui vene laste vo˜imalik sotsialiseerumiskeskond" (An Estonian school as a possible socializing milieu for Russian children). In Mitmekultuuriline Eesti: Va¨ljakutse haridusele Va¨ljanne (Multicultural Estonia: A chal-lenge for education), ed. M. Lauristin, S. Vare, T. Pedastsaar, and M. Pavelson. Tartu: Tartu U¨ likool. Vihalemm, Triin, and M. Lauristin. 1999. Cultural Adjustment to the Changing Societal Environment: The Case of Russians in Estonia. Tartu: Tartu University Press.
Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.


text:
Nathan Fillion: Castle
Alexis Castle (Molly Quinn) has had a tough time accepting Castle (Nathan Fillion) and Beckett's (Stana Katic) engagement. Not on principle per se, but more because dear… more »
Fanboys and fangirls of the world, prepare to have your brains implode with awesomeness. Nathan Fillion — the hilarious, geeky and irrefutably charming actor behind cult… more »
When Castle (Nathan Fillion) proposed to Beckett (Stana Katic) in the Castle Season 5 finale, even the most die-hard Caskett shippers were skeptical. After all, Beckett… more »
For the second time in as many months, Nathan Fillion (Richard Castle) was a no-show on the Los Angeles set of the his ABC drama, Castle. While his absence earlier this summer was… more »
In the minds of many geeks and superhero fans, Castle star Nathan Fillion may be the ideal person to play Batman in Man of Steel 2 (likely replacing Christian Bale) but it turns… more »


text:
World » More
U.S. » More
Business » More
Tech » More
Markets » More
Market Data
Your Money » More
Opinion » More
Life & Culture » More
N.Y. » More
Real Estate » More
Management » More
Your email has been sent.
An error has occured and your email has not been sent. Please try again.
Chart available at Market Data Center
Dec 8, 2013; New York, NY, USA; New York Rangers center Derick Brassard (16) checks Washington Capitals left wing Aaron Volpatti (24) during the second period at Madison Square Garden. The Capitals won the game 4-1. Mandatory Credit: Joe Camporeale-USA TODAY Sports
Content engaging our readers now, with additional prominence accorded if the story is rapidly gaining attention. Our WSJ algorithm comprises 30% page views, 20% Facebook, 20% Twitter, 20% email shares and 10% comments.
Show 5 More
Show Less
Subscriber Content Read Preview


text:
New Fall Shows: New episodes every day!
You can Find & Remote control your device! (iPhone, iPad, iPod touch, iPad mini)
Stay up-to-date on all the cool apps the kids are fiddling with these days. Or if you're a kid, help your parents log-in to their iTunes account. They would like apps, too.
Discover the best in original web series.
© 2013 Blip Networks, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Blip is part of Maker Studios