Language orientations in early childhood education policy in Finland and Norway

This is a self-archived version of an original article. This version may differ from the original in pagination and typographic details. Author(s): Title: Year: Version: Copyright: Rights: Rights url: Please cite the original version: CC BY-NC 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ Language orientations in early childhood education policy in Finland and Norway © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. Published version Alstad, Gunhild Tomter; Sopanen, Pauliina Alstad, G. T., & Sopanen, P. (2021). Language orientations in early childhood education policy in Finland and Norway. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 7(1), 30-43. https://doi.org/10.1080/20020317.2020.1862951 2021 Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=znst20 Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/znst20 Language orientations in early childhood education policy in Finland and Norway Gunhild Tomter Alstad & Pauliina Sopanen To cite this article: Gunhild Tomter Alstad & Pauliina Sopanen (2020): Language orientations in early childhood education policy in Finland and Norway, Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, DOI: 10.1080/20020317.2020.1862951 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/20020317.2020.1862951 © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. Published online: 23 Dec 2020. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 49 View related articles View Crossmark data Language orientations in early childhood education policy in Finland and Norway Gunhild Tomter Alstad a and Pauliina Sopanen b a Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences, Norway; b Faculty of humanities and social sciences, University of Jyväskylä, Finland ABSTRACT This article investigates the language orientations in education policy documents for early childhood education and care (ECEC) in Finland and Norway. Finland, an officially bilingual country, and Norway, a predominantly monolingual country, share similar views on ECEC. However, the ECEC field in both countries has undergone major changes in recent years: more children are attending ECEC, and the increasing number of children with diverse backgrounds and minority languages. The document analysis includes seven policy documents related to ECEC in Finland and Norway. The analytical approach is based on Ruíz’ framework for language orientations, i.e. language as resource, language as right and language as problem. The analysis shows that the language orientation in ECEC policy is rather vague and open. On the one hand, multilingualism is seen as a resource. On the other hand, multilingualism is considered as challenging in terms of language diversity, facilitating multilingual and first language development. In both countries, there seems to be a a monolingual ideology underlying the policy. We discuss these findings in light of policy implementations and finally underline the importance of critical multilingual awareness in early childhood teacher education. ARTICLE HISTORY Received 28 June 2019 Accepted 8 December 2020 KEYWORDS Language education policy; language orientations; ideologies; multilingualism; early childhood education; early childhood education policies Introduction and background This article is about language ideologies and orientations in early childhood education and care policies in Finland and Norway. As a result of global migration, linguistic diversity has increased in Western societies in recent years. At the same time, more government attention is being given to language issues in education (Bae, 2018), such as language rights (Sajavaara et al., 2007), regulations, and decisions about languages and how they are used in education (García & Menken, 2010). In recent years, one of the most significant political reforms worldwide concerning language teaching has been lowering the age of introduction to additional languages. This reform has been described as ‘possibly the world’s biggest policy development in education’ (Johnstone, 2009, p. 33). The reform applies primarily to learning certain languages with high social status, such as English, and it underlines the point that both language policy and education policy are value-laden and oriented to ideologies and power in different ways (Aasen et al., 2014; Hornberger & Johnson, 2007). Most research on language ideologies in education has been conducted in formal contexts like school, or in other contexts than the Nordic context. The two Nordic countries Finland and Norway share more or less the same traditions and values in ECEC. The emphasis is on a play-based, child-centred approach, with the focus on children’s holistic learning and development. Language and literacy learning are supposed to be integrated into a meaningful context in everyday situations, and no specific learning outcomes have been defined for children attending ECEC. However, the language situation and context in each of the two countries are different: Finnish society is built on bilingualism in legislation and society (Finnish/Swedish), while Norway is predominantly monolingual (Norwegian). At the same time, the ECEC field has undergone major changes in recent years in terms of immigration and linguistic diversity. The number of children attending ECEC is increasing, and there are more children with diverse backgrounds. In 2016, about 9% of all children participating in communal ECEC in Finland had an immigrant background (THL (The National Institute for Health and Welfare), 2017). Similarly, in Norway, the number of children from linguistic and cultural minorities increased from 6% of all children in 2003 to 18.3% in 2018 1 (Statistics Norway, 2019). The change has thus happened at different rates in the two countries, and there are proportionally more minority children in Norway. Given these background facts, the purpose of this study is to make transparent the language ideologies in Norwegian and Finnish ECEC policy. Our research CONTACT Gunhild Tomter Alstad [email protected] Faculty of Education, Inland Norway University for Applied Sciences, Norway NORDIC JOURNAL OF STUDIES IN EDUCATIONAL POLICY https://doi.org/10.1080/20020317.2020.1862951 © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. question is, what characterizes the language orientations in government policy documents for ECEC in Finland and Norway. In order to answer this, we analyse seven government education policy documents published in the period 2008–2017. In the document analysis, we examine the terminology used and explore in detail how multilingual matters in ECEC are presented. We discuss the findings in the light of sociopolicital context, such as the broader educational and monolingual/bilingual context and immigration in each country. Finally, we discuss the implementation of the language education policies in the ECEC curricula. Previous studies The research field of language education policy has expanded in recent years, focusing on how education is implicitly and explicitly based on different views of languages, multilingualism and language practices, how languages are valued in education, and what aspects of language(s) are considered important to education (Hult & Hornberger, 2016). These studies have focused on different policy layers and spaces, such as implementations of language education policy in which teachers and students are regarded as language policy makers and negotiators, and the intentional policy level in political documents (Hornberger, 2006). Most Finnish and Norwegian research on language education policy has been aimed at the policy practices of teachers and students in formal educational contexts like schools (i.e. Jinkerson, 2011; Sickinghe, 2013). The modest share of research on ECEC contexts has mainly been ethnographic studies involving teachers, parents and children. Studies on the language discourses and ideologies of ECEC practitioners and parents (Bergroth & Palviainen, 2016; Pesch, 2018) have highlighted the conflicts between promoting, tolerating and discouraging linguistic diversity, such as the emphasis, on the one hand, on the ideal that all languages are equal and, on the other, on the importance of adequate knowledge of the language of instruction. Some of these studies on language education policy in ECEC briefly mention national policy documents (mainly the curricula) as supportive of linguistic diversity, without any further elaboration or discussion. According to recent research on general language policy documents, both Finland and Norway recognize the benefits of linguistic diversity, although the diversity is considered Janus-faced in educational contexts: there are tensions between language diversity as a positive resource for individual learning and development, and diversity as a social problem (Nikula et al., 2012). Two parallel discourses around multilingualism can be identified: those that ‘seem to undermine the multilingualism brought about by immigration’ and those that ‘acknowledge immigrant languages as a useful resource’ (Nikula et al., 2012, p. 60). Similarly, research on Finnish government policy documents shows that language is linked with Finland’s constitutional bilingualism instead of with the individual’s linguistic identity (Ihalainen & Saarinen, 2015; Pöyhönen & Saarinen, 2015). It has been found that in Finland in both government programmes and in language education policies and language policies related to formal school contexts, there is very little space for ‘other languages’ or for other kinds of bilingualism than Finnish-Swedish. Similar ambivalent discourses on multilingualism are identified in Norwegian policy documents. In a study of conceptualizations of multilingual children in two Norwegian official reports from 1995 and 2010, Bubikova-Moan (2017) found that multilingualism was considered less a resource in the later report. Despite some attempts at supporting multilingualism, the 2010 report mainly stresses the instrumental value of multilingualism in the international market, whereas the 1995 report emphasized multilingualism as an asset on both the individual and societal level. These reports have recommendations for the government, but do not necessarily represent the political orientations of the authorities. In her study on six government immigration policy documents, Kulbrandstad (2017) demonstrates that the political focus has changed over the years from a multilingual approach in education to a stronger emphasis on Norwegian as a second language. These recent studies reveal the increasing emphasis on second language learning and a monolinguistic ideology, with correspondingly less emphasis on linguistic diversity (Kulbrandstad, 2017; Nikula et al., 2012; Sickinghe, 2013). Even if ECEC is generally considered to be a field with a high level of political involvement and progressive policies (Bae, 2018; Boyd & Huss, 2017), there has been less focus on the political intentionality in language issues in ECEC policy documents, often taking a supportive orientation to linguistic diversity for granted. This study aims to make more transparent the language orientations in recent policy documents for early childhood education and to discuss the implementation of these orientations. Theoretical framework Language ideologies in policy Within policy research, a focus on language ideology has mostly been prominent in general studies of language policy. Woolard (1998) defines language ideology as systems of ideas, perceptions and beliefs, a way of seeing the world in a group, a society or 2G. T. ALSTAD AND P. SOPANEN individual at a given time or time period. Language ideologies may be contradictory, but still they are not entirely random. In studies on multilingualism, language ideologies may be related, for example, to what is perceived as adequate language use, how multilingualism is considered, or how the languages involved are related to each other. The onelanguage–one-nation equation is an example of a language ideology (Woolard & Schieffelin, 1994, pp. 60–61). Ricento (2006, p. 15) points out that language policy research can favour majoritarian interests in implicit and hegemonic ways that reflect ideologies. Some ideologies might be a manifestation of asymmetrical power relations based on social structures and ideologies that position groups – and their languages – hierarchically within a society. A key aspect of language ideologies is the interaction between overall socio-political and cultural frameworks and the implementation of the ideologies. Woolard points out that the efficacy of ideologies – or the constructed practices – is consequential for both social and linguistic processes, ”although not always consequential in the way its practitioners might envision” (Woolard, 1998, s., pp. 10–11). Hornberger (2002) and Johnson (2010, p. 63) refer to the windows of opportunity that might occur to educators/practitioners as possible implementational and ideological spaces in language policies: ‘Focusing on spaces in language policy offers a way to understand how macro-language policies relate to microlanguage education practices and, particularly, how multilingual educators engage with language policy processes’ (Johnson, 2010, p. 63). Language as resource, language as problem, and language as right One analytical framework for examining ideologies in language policy is language orientations, based on Ruíz (1984). These orientations are defined as a set of values for languages and multilingualism (Hult & Hornberger, 2016; Ruíz, 1984). Ruíz distinguishes between three orientations in policies – language as problem, language as right and language as resource – which Ruíz refers to as ‘a complex of dispositions toward language and its role, and toward languages and their role in society’ (Ruíz, 1984, p. 16). The language-as-problem orientation emphasizes monolingualism and the majority language in both society and education, and sees language diversity as a social problem that needs to be solved (Hult & Hornberger, 2016; Ruíz, 1984, 1990). According to Ruíz (1984, p. 21), ‘this particular orientation [. . .] may be representative of a more general outlook on cultural and social diversity’. Linguistic diversity and minority languages are considered not to have value (Hult & Hornberger, 2016, p. 33) or to be something undesirable for the community, school curriculum or child (Ruíz, 2010, p. 166). In this orientation, language problems might be equated with social problems, minority language maintenance is seen as unnecessary, and language education is transitional (Hult & Hornberger, 2016, p. 33). As regards the language-as-right orientation, Hult and Hornberger (2016, p. 35) explain that it ‘seeks to address linguistically-based inequities using compensatory legal mechanisms’. The right to use one’s own language and the right not to be discriminated based on language are mentioned as central to this orientation as well as to international conventions, treaties and human rights (Hult & Hornberger, 2016, p. 33; Ruíz, 1984, p. 23). Some rights might be limited to specific groups such as different minority groups (Ruíz, 1984, p. 23). Ruíz (1984, pp. 24–25) sees this orientation as in many ways problematic, but highlights the need to discuss language rights in connection to language planning. According to Hult and Hornberger, language as resource is the antithesis of the language-as-problem orientation (Hult & Hornberger, 2016, p. 38). This orientation values societal multilingualism, cultural diversity and linguistic minorities as resources, and promotes tolerance and acceptance (Hult & Hornberger, 2016; Ruíz, 1984). Language learning is seen as additive and language maintenance as valuable (Hult & Hornberger, 2016, p. 33). Examples of this orientation might be considering multilingualism as a resource for everyone, not only for linguistic minorities and their communities, or as both a personal and a national resource. These orientations have been contested by, for example, Crawford (1998) and Ricento (2005). Hult and Hornberger (2016, p. 42) claim that they have limited utility as an analytical heuristic because language policy is often influenced by ‘an amalgamation of forces including extralinguistic social issues and political expediency such that “pure” orientations may be difficult to divine’. They argue, however, that the orientations are a useful guide in deductive analysis of the values that emerge from complex policy debate and negotiation, and in bringing to light situated understandings of ‘what is thinkable about language in society’ (Hult & Hornberger, 2016, p. 43). By using Ruíz’ framework as the analytical starting point of our analysis, we aim to make the language ideologies in ECEC policies more transparent. Research design and methodology As language ideologies and orientations are closely related to the socio-political and historical context and belong in the specific written context of the document in which they appear, we applied NORDIC JOURNAL OF STUDIES IN EDUCATIONAL POLICY 3 a qualitative case study design to gain a deeper, contextual understanding of the phenomenon (Yin, 2014, p. 16). ECEC policy might be overt and covert in political debate, social discourse and in various official documents at macro, meso and micro levels (Baldauf, 2005, p. 959). Our focus is on policy documents on the macro level, the national level, because the ”actual planning at the macro level is very much a political process” (Baldauf, 2005, p. 963) and it is there that official ECEC policy is stated. The data in our study are seven policy documents. The unit of analysis in each case is the policy documents of each country, and these are regarded as embedded in the respective national context. The analysis had two phases: first, identifying and sampling policy documents, then carrying out a summative content analysis of the selected documents, which involved counting and comparing key words, followed by an interpretation of the underlying context (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). In the first phase of the research process, we identified political documents at the national level that make reference to language issues in ECEC. We focused on intentional policy documents (policy-inintention) and left outside policy-in-implementation documents (curriculum guidelines) and policy-inexperience documents (Wiley, 2015, pp. 173–174) so that we could focus on future development and compare documents of similar purpose and genre. We have chosen one language education policy document from each country as well as two ECEC policy documents from Finland and three from Norway (cf. Section 5). While the language education policy documents mention ECEC in separate sections, in addition to general principles for language education regardless of age, the ECEC policy documents mention language issues in separate chapters. We identified seven relevant national policy documents published between 2008–2017. We selected policy documents that were proposed in the period after both countries transferred responsibility for ECEC from their family and social ministries to their ministries of education, i.e., after 2005 in Norway and 2013 in Finland. The Norwegian documents are white papers from the government to the Storting, so they are future government policy. Common to all documents is that they are all considered strategies, recommendations or action plans, and they all share the same purpose, to guide and give direction to policy. Although in every case the policy level is governmental and the documents all give guidance on future policies, the documents are not always comparable. Firstly, while the four white papers chosen in Norway are all the same type of document, the documents from Finland are more variable: action plans, roadmaps, and strategic documents. Secondly, the Norwegian white papers are proposals for the Storting, while the Finnish documents are published by the Ministry of Education and Culture or their workgroups and function as guidelines on different levels. Despite these dissimilarities, we have chosen to compare them because they express national, governmental orientations and intentions at a given time. Having identified the policy documents, we proceeded to a textual content analysis consisting of three steps. First, we read the documents in order to identify explicit terms related to ECEC language education policy in the texts, i.e., key words related to multilingualism and to language learning and teaching, terms that appeared to be relevant in the context of each individual document or the documents together. Six key words were chosen to examine term-based tendencies in the policy documents: multilingual, bilingual, mother tongue, first language, second language, and language diversity. Multicultural/cultural diversity was later added to the list because we found that cultural and linguistic diversity were often mentioned together. None of these terms in themselves necessarily reflect language orientations, but the text around them may show how they relate to the broader social context and orientations. The second step involved quantifying the key words identified, using the advanced document search function. The search was conducted in the language of the document. We went through the results using the context of each search to delete irrelevant use, such as headings and reference lists. Since the documents vary in length, the numbers are not directly comparable from document to document, so the quantification is interpreted from the context in which the key word is used in the individual document. Close analysis was the third step. In it we used the results of the quantitative analysis as a starting point. We interpreted the content based on formulations, such as word choices, as they were used in the documents. According to Woolard, there is a mediating link between social structures and linguistic practices or ‘forms of talk’ (Woolard, 1992, p. 235). In line with Woolard, Irvine and Gal (2000, p. 37) argue that linguistic features are considered to be expressions of cultural images of people or activities, and the connection between them is based on language ideologies. They refer to these indexicalizations as semiotic processes, in which linguistic features are associated with particular expressions and utterances. Certain terms or expressions might be associated with orientation problems, rights, or resources: for example, expressions like ”strength” or ”value” can be linked to a resource orientation, and text elements that question or problematize something in negative terms, as in the following example: ‘It is demanding 4G. T. ALSTAD AND P. SOPANEN to support L1 acquisition for all children’, can be linked to problems. Through this approach we aimed to catch the flows and possible changes or differences in the discourses over a period of time and in the two different contexts (cf. Yin, 2014). One way to demonstrate internal consistency is to show that the textual evidence is consistent with the interpretation. The excerpts 2 used to illustrate our points are, however, limited by their inattention to the broader meanings present in the data (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). Language orientations in ECEC policy Multiple views of multilingualism in ECEC – the case of Finland The Ministry of Education and Culture of Finland (MEC) is responsible for drawing up guidelines and strategic definitions for education policy as well as for preparing legislation and government decisions on education policy in Finland, including language education. As a member of European Union, Finland follows the outlines of proposals and regulations formulated by EU both on the level of language policy and of ECEC. Therefore, these policies on national and European level can be seen as woven together. In 2013, Finnish ECEC became more strongly connected to the education continuum when responsibility for ECEC was transferred from the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health to the Ministry of Education and Culture. Language policy in Finland is outlined in the Constitution (1999) and the Language Act (2003). In addition, in 2012 the Prime Minister’s Office under Jyrki Katainen published The Strategy for the National Languages of Finland, which was followed by the Action Plan for the Strategy for National Languages of Finland, published in 2017 by the Ministry of Justice while Juha Sipilä was prime minister. Together, these acts and strategy documents give a solid basis for Finnish language policy, which acknowledges multilingualism in society but highlights the national languages, Finnish and Swedish. The language education policy document, Multilingualism as a strength (Ministry of Education and Culture (MEC), 2017a), is the final report of an enquiry into the current state of the Finnish language reserve and levels of language competence and development needs. It concentrates on multilingualism, as its title suggests, and it states explicitly that its main focus is on languages other than Finnish and Swedish, because these two are discussed in language policy documents (Ministry of Education and Culture (MEC), 2017a, p. 11). Although the document covers all stages of education, it has a specific section on ECEC, and ECEC issues are also discussed elsewhere in the document. The two ECEC policy documents, The history, present stage and developmental needs for early childhood education and care (Ministry of Education and Culture (MEC), 2014) and Roadmap on the developmental needs for early childhood education for 2017–2030 (Ministry of Education and Culture (MEC), 2017b), were written by expert groups of different actors in the education sector. As the titles indicate, the focus is firmly on the future development of ECEC. The former (Ministry of Education and Culture (MEC), 2014) served as the basis of a reform of the legislation on ECEC, while the latter (Ministry of Education and Culture (MEC), 2017b) discussed enrolment rates, the development of ECEC teacher education, and the needs of in-service education, inter alia. All these documents were published in Finnish with short summaries in Swedish and English. The proposals for action put forward in Multilingualism as a strength and the reasoning behind the proposals were published as separate documents in Finnish, Swedish and English. These language choices for the publishing reflect the language situation in Finland, where Finnish occupies the majority position and Swedish the minority position, despite their equal status as national languages. Despite the growing number of children with different language backgrounds in ECEC and the linguistically changing society, multilingualism and bilingualism are only barely touched upon, if at all, in the ECEC policy documents. In the language education policy document, these terms are more visible. It should be noted that in Finland bilingualism is mostly connected to bilingualism in the national languages and to societal bilingualism (Ihalainen & Saarinen, 2015; Pöyhönen & Saarinen, 2015) while multilingualism often refers to other languages or other combinations of languages. In the language education policy document, multilingualism is emphasized over bilingualism, which can partly be explained by its focus on other languages beside the national languages. In the documents, the term mother tongue (or first language) refers to Finnish, Swedish and other languages. The term second language appears in different ways: it can refer to Finnish/Swedish as a second language for individuals with other first language(s), to Finnish/Swedish as the second language for those who are bilingual in Finnish-Swedish, or even to Finnish/Swedish as the other (national) language. Interestingly, the term language diversity/linguistic diversity is not mentioned at all. By contrast, the term multicultural/cultural diversity is found in all of the documents, getting most hits in the ECEC policy documents. The relatively low numbers and the lack of hits on multilingualism in these documents can perhaps be explained by the use of the term multicultural as a synonym for multilingual. NORDIC JOURNAL OF STUDIES IN EDUCATIONAL POLICY 5 A closer look at the language orientations in the documents shows that they take multiple points of view to languages. The language education policy document discusses language education and learning and the importance of languages for both society and the individual. Overall, multilingualism is seen as an asset and recognized explicitly as a resource: ‘Multilingualism is dependent on context, and any kind of individual multilingualism should be recognized, accepted and seen as a resource’ (Ministry of Education and Culture (MEC), 2017a, p. 16). This follows Ruíz’s (1984) original idea of seeing languages as a resource. However, it is not only the resource orientation that becomes visible. Multilingualism is discussed as a resource in society, as a right, and as challenging, but not as a problem in the way Ruíz (1984, 2010)) sees it. It is written that multilingualism, linguistic diversity and language awareness (as a broad term, including e.g., multilingual awareness) should be seen as fundamental elements in all Finnish education. This is not necessarily considered easy for teachers. Although the document recognizes the benefits of multilingualism and explicitly takes the resource orientation as its starting point, it acknowledges that promoting multilingualism in less heterogeneous ECEC groups can be challenging. Multilingualism on the individual level is discussed mainly under the themes of Heritage language teaching and Finnish/Swedish as a second language, referring to children or students with other first language(s) than either of the national languages (see also Gruber & Puskás, 2013). In the document, it is stated that, [T]he present Curriculum for ECEC (VASU) [the curriculum] highlights language awareness and cultural diversity, but it is another matter whether preschool teachers have the competence to promote this. According to VASU, the development of language skills in Finnish/Swedish of multilingual children must be promoted on the different aspects of language knowledge. (Ministry of Education and Culture (MEC), 2017a, pp. 100-101). The issues concerning ECEC that are discussed are not only related to children’s language learning but also to whether teachers have sufficient professional knowledge to promote language and cultural awareness in their teaching. The importance of second language development is also underlined. Here, different ideologies can be seen. On the one hand, it is important to highlight diversity in ECEC, but on the other, language skills in the national languages must be promoted. The document, however, also mentions the importance of supporting children’s mother tongue(s): According to research, it would be good that ECEC supports all those languages that a child has. This support tells about respecting different backgrounds, but it is also essential for the later learning and development of the child. (Ministry of Education and Culture (MEC), 2017a, p. 106). The ECEC policy documents only rarely mention languages, and then mostly just to acknowledge different languages. Mother tongues are discussed in connection with the legal rights of getting ECEC in Finnish, Swedish or Sami, or to second language teaching and mother tongue(s) other than these three. Multilingualism is mentioned only in the section on Multilingual and multicultural children, referring to Swedishand Sami-speaking children, foreign-language-speaking children, and children with an immigrant background (Ministry of Education and Culture (MEC), 2014, pp. 77–79). In other words, all children except speakers of Finnish are counted as multilingual or as having a different cultural background. Compared with the language education policy document, one notices a tendency to see multilingualism or multiculturalism as touching only children who are not Finnish-, Swedishor Sami-speaking, or even as excluding only Finnish speakers. This can create tensions or highlight otherness. Even though multilingualism is rarely explicitly mentioned in ECEC policy documents, societal changes and linguistic and cultural diversity are implicitly present in discussions around the term multicultural. Here, multiculturalism refers to societal changes, multicultural education, and the changes necessary in teacher education and further education (Ministry of Education and Culture (MEC), 2014; Ministry of Education and Culture (MEC), 2017b). Although language learning and cultural knowledge are mentioned as important parts of future ECEC, and both ECEC policy documents acknowledge that there is a need for further education about multiculturalism, multiculturalism is also associated with challenges, pressure, demands and the need for staff professional development: ‘The situation brought about by recent immigration creates pressure to add content concerning multiculturalism to education’ (Ministry of Education and Culture (MEC), 2017b, p. 78). It is also said that multiculturalism in ECEC is an under-researched area, and that there are no explicit goals for it in the pre-school curriculum. The document (Ministry of Education and Culture (MEC), 2014, p. 163) sums up some results from two relevant studies as follows: “[. . .] Education in multiculturalism extends only to children with immigration background and it is carried through by the teacher of Finnish as a second language or the mother tongue teacher of the immigrated child. It does not involve the children of the majority culture. The purpose of education in multiculturalism is to integrate the child with immigration background to the majority culture and to support 6G. T. ALSTAD AND P. SOPANEN her/him in the problems that may harm the integration” (Ministry of Education and Culture (MEC), 2014, p. 63) and “Education in multiculturalism often just underlines the differences, because it has Finnish culture as its starting point” (Ministry of Education and Culture (MEC), 2014, p. 63). Although these extracts highlight some problems around education in multiculturalism, they do not necessarily take a problem orientation as their starting point, but mention aspects that need to be solved in the future. Along with other examples from the ECEC policy document, these show that multiculturalism, or cultural diversity, is not directly seen as problematic, but rather as challenging for Finnish ECEC; it calls for professional development, changes in teacher education and changes in actual practices. The language orientation is not problem-oriented in terms of Ruíz’ conceptualizations (Ruíz, 1984, 2010), but rather as challenging (see also Rosén & Straszer, 2018). When considering the results from all the Finnish documents together, one finds multiple orientations towards languages in them. Towards multilingualism as a challenge in ECEC policy – the case of Norway In 2008, the Norwegian government introduced proposals for both a new language policy and a language education policy (Languages build bridges). The white paper on language education policy refers directly to the language policy document, and it is stated clearly that the language education policy outlined there is part of overall language policy. While overall language policy falls under the Ministry of Culture, language education policy falls under the Ministry of Education and Research (MER). After the 2008 language education policy, the Ministry proposed three white papers on ECEC policy (Ministry of Education and Research (MER), 2009, Ministry of Education and Research (MER), 2013, and Ministry of Education and Research (MER), 2016). The background to this government involvement can be seen in various changes that were introduced in Norwegian ECEC in the mid-2000s. First, responsibility for ECEC was moved from the Ministry of Family and Social Affairs to the Ministry of Education and Research and thereby officially became the first (but voluntary) step in education. In addition, a serious effort was made to expand ECEC to include all children, for which there was general agreement in the Storting. After that, however, the focus shifted from quantity and more ECEC institutions to quality and, consequently, the content of ECEC. The white paper Quality in ECEC (Ministry of Education and Research (MER), 2009) explicitly signals a focus on the quality of the content. The other two papers, ECEC of the future (Ministry of Education and Research (MER), 2013) and Play and learning (Ministry of Education and Research (MER), 2016), seek to develop the particular identity of ECEC in the future. Three of the four white papers were presented by a left-wing government under a Labour prime minister (Stoltenberg), and the fourth (Ministry of Education and Research (MER), 2016) was proposed by the Conservative Party (Prime Minister Solberg) and a right-wing government. The four white papers are written in ‘bokmål’, which is the most widely used written language variety in Norway. After identifying the documents, we identified and searched for key words. Table 2 shows the frequency of key words in each of the documents. The findings demonstrate a shift in key words related to multilingualism. The terms bi-/multilingualism are present in all documents. There seems to be no strict distinction between multilingual and bilingual; the terms are used interchangeably. The term multilingual seems to be more widely used in the ECEC policy documents. The term first language (or mother tongue) refers mostly to linguistic or cultural minorities and their first language, and the term second language refers to Norwegian as a second language. Second language is more frequently used than any other term in the latest ECEC policy document, from 2016; it is not mentioned at all in the 2009 ECEC policy document. The term linguistic diversity is used in the language education policy document, but not in the ECEC policy documents, where the term multiculturalism or cultural diversity is used. The terminology used in the ECEC documents changes over time (with more focus on Norwegian as a second language), and one term (linguistic diversity) appears in language diversity policy but not in ECEC policy. Close analysis gives a more nuanced picture of the language orientations. The language education policy document explicitly states a resource orientation by using the word ‘resource’: ‘Mastery of multiple languages is a valuable resource for each individual and for society’ (Ministry of Education and Research (MER), 2008, p. 18). At the same time, a clear commitment to facilitating second language learning is also expressed. In the document’s conclusion and in the proposals for measures relating to ECEC, Norwegian as second language is stressed. This does not appear to be expressing opposition to multilingualism as a resource. We find the same tendencies in the 2009 ECEC policy document, underlining the importance of multilingual support: ‘A quality ECEC that recognizes children’s different languages and which stimulates them in different ways will be important in developing children’s NORDIC JOURNAL OF STUDIES IN EDUCATIONAL POLICY 7 Ruíz, R. (1984). Orientations in language planning. NABE Journal, 8(2), 15–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/08855072. 1984.106684 Ruíz, R. (1990). Official languages and language planning. In K. Adams & D. Brink (Eds.), Perspectives on official English: The Campaign for English as the Official Language of the USA (pp. 11–24). Mouton. Ruíz, R. (2010). Reorienting language-as-resource. In J. E. Petrovic (Ed.), International perspectives on bilingual education: Policy, practice, and controversy (pp. 155–172). Information Age Publishing. Runfors, A. (2013). Nationell förskola med mångkulturellt uppdrag. In P. Björk-Willén, S. Gruber, & T. Puskás (Eds.), Nationell förskola med mångkulturellt uppdrag (pp. 137–150). Liber. Sajavaara, K., Luukka, M.-R., & Pöyhönen, S. (2007). Kielikoulutuspolitiikka Suomessa: Lähtökohtia, ongelmia ja tulevaisuuden haasteita [Language education policy in Finland: Starting points, problems and challenges of the future]. In S. Pöyhönen & M.-R. Luukka (Eds.), Tulevaisuuden kielikoulutusta. Koulutuspoliittisen projektin loppuraportti [Language education in the future. Closing report of the project on education policy] (pp. 13–42). Jyväskylän yliopistopaino. Sickinghe, A.-V. (2013). The discursive construction of multilinguals in Norwegian language education policy. Nordand – Nordisk Tidsskrift for Andrespråkforskning, 8 (2), 87–114. Sopanen, P. (2018). Kielitietoisuus uudessa varhaiskasvatussuunnitelmassa [Language awareness in the new National Core Curriculum for ECEC]. Kieli, Koulutus Ja Yhteiskunta, 9(3). https://www.kieliverkosto.fi/fi/ journals/kieli-koulutus-ja-yhteiskunta-toukokuu-2018/ kielitietoisuus-uudessa-varhaiskasvatussuunnitelmassa Statistics Norway. (2019). Kindergartens. https://www.ssb. no/en/utdanning/statistikker/barnehager THL (The National Institute for Health and Welfare). (2017). Early childhood education and care 2016 - A report of municipality enquiry. Statistics report 30/ 2017. http://www.julkari.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/ 135184/TR30_17_vaka_kuntakysely_u.pdf?sequence= 5&isAllowed=y Wiley, T. G. (2015). Language policy and planning. In W. E. Wright, S. Boun, & O. García (Eds.), The handbook of bilingual and multlingual education (pp. 164–184). Wiley-Blackwell. Woolard, K. A. (1992). Language ideology: Issues and approaches. Pragmatics, 2(3), 235–249. https://doi.org/ 10.1075/prag.2.3.01woo Woolard, K. A. (1998). Language ideology as a field of inquiry. In B. B. Schieffelin, K. A. Woolard, & P. V. Kroskrity (Eds.), Language ideologies. Practice and theory (pp. 3–47). Oxford University Press. Woolard, K. A., & Schieffelin, B. B. (1994). Language ideology. Annual Review of Anthropology, 23(1), 55–82. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.an.23.100194.000415 Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research. Design and methods (5th ed.). SAGE. 14 G. T. ALSTAD AND P. SOPANEN