Dr. Stephen Krashen has written and posted an inaccurate 9-page review of my book Structured English Immersion: A Step-by-Step Guide for K-6 Teachers and Administrators at various websites. More recently, he submitted the following summation of that review to the Extensive Reading mail server:
"Haver's recent book contains many serious problems. It proclaims 'Structured English Immersion' to be superior to bilingual education without providing justification, denies the massive data supporting the reality of language 'acquisition,' and recommends a wide variety of activities, without research support. In addition, the research that is cited is presented inaccurately and incompletely."
Structured English Immersion does not proclaim or even suggest that immersion education is superior to bilingual education. The only mention of bilingual education occurs in a brief history of the initiatives "State Initiatives Abolish Bilingual Education" that can be found in the introduction. I cut that section down to slightly more than a page because the peer-reviewers (mostly bilingual ed advocates themselves) considered it "old information" and not very interesting. My book is about teaching ELLs - not about the bilingual ed vs. immersion debate.
I explain the purpose of the book in the intro: "It is meant to be especially helpful to the rapidly increasing number of educators who are required by law or inclination to shift to SEI but do not have enough information or practical materials to feel comfortable doing so."
Also in the introduction, I discuss my own experiences that led to the writing of the book. I have taught ELLs for 19 years in the U.S., English to German students in Germany for one year, and English to Japanese students in Japan for two years. I myself learned German as a second language and am an advocate of bilingualism.
I make it clear that the research in the list at the end of the book called "Recommended Reading for Practitioners" has a purpose: "to assist those teachers who want to continue to learn how to implement SEI and/or are interested in the research on immersion education."
In Structured English Immersion I mention very little about Dr. Krashen and his theories. However, before the book's publication, I criticized Dr. Krashen harshly in an Arizona newspaper concerning his views on the teaching of grammar and bilingual education to children classified as English language learners (ELLs). He responded quite angrily to this. Thus, I do not believe Dr. Krashen is in a position to judge my book objectively. His motivation for choosing to review my book over hundreds of other ones that cover the same subject is highly suspect.
Krashen criticizes the section "Recommended Reading for Practitioners" ("Resource A" at the end of the book). He calls it a "biased" bibliography. This list is properly identified by me as something other than a bibliography and is not biased. For example, I include the minutes of an Arizona legislative meeting at which Dr. Krashen expressed his point of view, a Canadian journal with which he is affiliated, and several books such as French Second Language Education in Canada: Empirical Studies (University of Toronto Press, 1998) that offer various perspectives on immersion education.
As stated in the introduction of the book, Structured English Immersion is based on three sources: "my own 32 years of teaching experience, research, and interviews with several successful educators." Thus, I found it unnecessary to cite research for every single suggestion. However, the book does provide a rationale for using each activity.
In my brief account of the California initiative, I summarize both sides of the argument concerning the interpretations of the CA test data but do not cover the issue on either side thoroughly. Whereas I offer examples of why the bilingual ed advocates do not believe that the test data supports immersion methods, Krashen writes a version that makes it seem I claim those to be their only arguments. He does this by omitting the words "other CA school reforms such as:"
My statement. "The bilingual ed advocates interpret the data differently. They believe that other CA school reforms such as smaller class size and changes in reading instruction have been responsible for the rise in test scores. They also insist that students will not maintain these academic gains as they progress through the grades."
Krashen's explanation of my statement. "She (Haver) claims that 'bilingual ed advocates attribute the gains to smaller class size and changes in reading instruction.' Not this advocate: there are several much more compelling arguments..."
(He mentions CA reforms that include changing the test)
Krashen accuses me of lying about a book included in my recommended reading list:
"She (Haver) describes Eckman, Highland, Lee, Millham and Weber (l995) as a book containing studies that show that grammar teaching improves immersion education. Not so. Only one paper in this volume mentions this literature. The other 18 are on a wide variety of topics..."
I limit my citation of this book with "pp. 131-185." I do not claim that the entire book is about the merits of teaching grammar. Krashen proceeds with the statement that only one article "mentions this literature" to further lambaste me. In truth, there are three articles - all within the pages cited:
Krashen discusses my letter to an Arizona newspaper. I do not believe that what I have written in a letter to an editor that had to do with the bilingual ed vs. immersion debate should be part of a review of my book. I kept that issue out of my book because I was hopeful that all teachers, no matter their stand on the subject, would be provided with some new ideas. From reports of book sales it appears that teachers who buy books on designing and implementing dual-language programs are also buying my book. Not a single person who has read Structured English Immersion, with the exception of Dr. Krashen, has reported the book to be critical of bilingual education.
He attempts to discount me as an "active critic of bilingual ed and a strong supporter of Arizona's Proposition 203" - something that has nothing to do with my book This is a typical ad hominem attack.
He even criticizes me for encouraging the use of the native language when absolutely necessary - that I am contradicting myself. He states that this suggestion agrees with how bilingual education is taught: "A reasonable stance is to provide help in the first language when input cannot be made comprehensible in other ways. This is precisely what bilingual programs intend to do..."
If that were the case - if bilingual ed worked that way - there would have been no need for the initiatives.
The court case California Teachers Association et al v. State Board of Education (originally called CTA v. Davis) explains to what extent the native language is permissible in the classroom as regards CA Prop 227. On September 18, 1999, U.S. Federal District Judge Rafeedie ruled that teachers are not to be prohibited from using "languages other than English in disciplining students, emergency training, social interactions, tutoring, parent-teacher conferences, or any of the other situations listed by the plaintiffs." Whereas the law states that English must be the overwhelmingly dominant language used in the classroom, the native language is most definitely not banned from it. There is nothing in any of the initiatives that restricts the students from speaking languages other than English. Moreover, it is permissible to translate something not understood by a student as long as it is momentary and does not interrupt the flow of the comprehensible English instruction. This agrees with what I suggest in my book.
I would like to challenge Krashen's claim in the critique that there are bilingual programs all over the world that work. Does he know of other programs where the children involved are immigrants who are being taught more in their native languages than in the language(s) of the new country/culture(s)? He is most likely aware that the highly celebrated Sodertalje program in Sweden where Finnish children continued to study in their native language was misrepresented and justification for that program is now considered "weak." Or - has he distorted that data - as seems to be his modus operandi?
Krashen ridicules me for stating "Krashen and Terrell maintain that language acquisition does not result from grammar drill, repetition of patterns, or from listening to incomprehensible speech, but develops "naturally" through free conversation."
Krashen states, "I have hypothesized that we acquire language by comprehension, not by language production."
I agree that generally people learn to understand what they hear before they can speak. However, language acquisition is more than understanding, it includes reproduction as well. Certainly he has known people who could understand a language but not speak it, such as those raised in a family where the parents spoke one language to each other and another language to the children most of the time. I do not consider those who can understand but not reproduce as having acquired the language.
Krashen offers a chapter of activities called "Oral Communication Development Through Acquisition Activities" in his book The Natural Approach. If Krashen does not consider free conversation to be a necessary step to acquiring a language, why does he include this 33-page chapter?
Krashen mentions in a couple places of his critique that I have cited the 1983 first edition of his book The Natural Approach in a way that implies I was at fault to use such an out-dated edition. I own only the 2000 edition and I listed it as such in the reference section.
Krashen obviously misses the point of my book when he claims that I feel "initial fluency is not the result of comprehensible input, but is the result of using patterns from the native language, and that correctness is the result of the application of consciously learned grammar rules." One entire 19-page chapter of my book deals exclusively with how to help children develop listening skills. Emphasis is put on this fundamental skill in other chapters as well. Just because I suggest ways for children to learn the most basic elements of grammar does not mean that I do not support the comprehensible input theory. I do support it and my book is proof of it.
I explain my stand on the teaching of basic grammar in the introduction of Structured English Immersion as follows:
"Whereas I agree with Krashen and Terrell's opinion that LEP children need opportunities to express themselves in English without being subjected to frequent corrections of errors, my experience has been that they can also be taught the basic structure of the language systematically from the beginning in ways that are both enjoyable and helpful."
In Structured English Immersion I offer several activities for students to overcome linguistic hurdles such as understanding the difference between "being" and "been." They don't suddenly use these words correctly - I would hardly expect it. However, they can learn to comprehend these words while listening and reading. As a result, they do not confuse the meaning of such phrases as "has been shooting" with "has been shot."
One of the reasons that so many ELLs have trouble with reading comprehension is that they do not have the skill to distinguish the main subject and verb from the rest of a sentence. Also, the 14 verb tenses of English as well as the six passive forms remain a mystery to them. As a result, they tend to skip over these constructions because Dr. Krashen recommends that we not teach any of it to them. Year after year, my students expressed gratitude to me for teaching them and allowing them to practice this very basic grammar.
In speech students become used to a certain intonation that helps them comprehend. They do not have that intonation pattern to help them while reading. An understanding of the basic structure of the language can help them tremendously.
Has Dr. Krashen not met people, many of them graduates of our high schools, who still say "I no have" or "I been sick?" This could be the result of instruction from teachers who followed Krashen's theories. The incorrect patterns become fossilized in the students' minds. They have absolutely no idea that they are speaking non-standard English because no one has taught them otherwise.
Dr. Krashen quotes me in "Is 180 Days Enough?" so that it seems I agree with his point of view:
"ESL teacher Johanna Haver, a supporter of 227, noted that her high school ESL students "claimed that it had taken them about six months to understand English and another six months to be able to respond in English. Of course, reading and writing was taking much longer..."
Where he erred was in the last sentence. I actually wrote: "Of course, the mastery of reading and writing was taking much longer..."
By the way, after about four years, Dr. Krashen acknowledged his error and apologized. The error has been corrected in the most recent editions of the essay.
My experience has been that if the teacher helps ELLs with the structure of a typically 26-30-word social studies sentence, they will gradually be able to comprehend such lengthy sentences quite well on their own.
One year I was teaching high school ELLs in an intermediate ESL class who were classmates in the same ESL social studies class. I worked with those students on separating out prepositional phrases so that they could easily find the main subject and verb of excessively long sentences. As a result of this practice, they scored the highest of any ESL social studies class on the district test in a district with a population of more than 4,000 ELLs. The social studies teacher gave me the credit for their achievement.
Only Dr. Krashen has criticized my book so far. Here are two examples of what other experts have said about it:
"Well written with many practical suggestions that should be most helpful to ESL teachers at all levels." -- James J. Asher, Originator of Total Physical Response
"Haver's "Structured English Immersion" excels in its directives to implement an effective SEI program from start to finish." -- Education Leaders Council Weekly Policy Update (May 16, 2003)
More information and reviews of my book can be found at http://www.corwinpress.com as well as the websites of all major booksellers. I would appreciate hearing from anyone on this issue.
Johanna Haver
Day, E. M., & Shapson, S. M. (1996). Studies in Immersion Education (pp. 5-49, 86-99). Clevedon, Philadelphia, & Adelaide: Multilingual Matters.
Eckman, F. R., Highland, D., Lee, P. W., Milleham, J., & Weber, R. R. (Eds.). (1995). Second Language Acquisition Theory and Pedagogy (pp. 131-185). Mahwah, NJ, and Have, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum.
English as a Second Language (ESL) and Bilingual Education Study Committee. (1999, November 17). Arizona State Legislature Minutes of Meeting.
Glenn, C. L (2001, May). Avoiding America's Mistakes. Remarks to a conference on educational equity in Stockholm, Sweden.
Haver, J. (2003). Structured English Immersion: A Step-by-Step Guide for K-6 Teachers and Administrators. Thousands Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Krashen, S., (2003, April). Comments on Johanna Haver, Structured English Immersion (2003). http://www.sdkrashen.com/articles/response_to_haver/01.html
Krashen, S., (2003, July 1). Comments on Johanna Haver, Structured English Immersion (2003). Extensive Reading: message #1103 "keen stuff." http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ExtensiveReading/message/1103
Krashen, S. D., & Terrell, T. D. (2000). The Natural Approach: Language Acquisition in the Classroom (3rd ed.). Essex, UK: Pearson Education.
Krashen, S., Ph.D. (1998). Is 180 Days Enough? A media project to combat the Big Lie. UW-180.htm at ourworld.compuserve.com.
Lapkin, S. (Ed.). (1998). French Second Language Education in Canada: Empirical Studies. Toronto, ON, Canada, and Buffalo, NY: University of Toronto Press.
Lapkin. S., & Lotherington, H. (Eds.). The Canadian Modern Language Review. Toronto , ON, Canada: University of Toronto Press.