Haver recommends, however, only limited use of the first language in the second language classroom (p. 32), for brief explanations. Haver is thus not against the use of the first language; apparently she is against what she considers excessive use of the first language. But where does one draw the line? How much is excessive? 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: Subject matter is taught in the second language as soon as it can be made comprehensible (Krashen, 1996).

Heritage Language Development

Haver supports the continued development of the primary language after children have acquired enough English to have "moved beyond SEI (structured English immersion) and totally into the mainstream" (p. 104). Haver agrees that "knowledge and proficiency in more than one language can benefit children as they enter a global world where good communication is essential for increasing cooperation and trade among nations" (p. 104). There are other reasons to continue the development of the heritage language: there is good evidence that bilingualism has positive effects on cognitive development (e.g. Krashen, 1998), and higher levels of competence in the heritage language insures better relationships with family, both with those living in the US and with those who live in the country of origin (Wong-Fillmore, 1999; G. Cho, 2000).

Structured Immersion versus Bilingual Education

Arguing for the superiority of Structured English Immersion, Haver states that "Two years after the passage of California's Proposition 227, reports appeared in several leading newspapers that LEP students had improved in all subjects due to the elimination of bilingual education and the implementation of structured immersion in California's public schools" (p. xi).

Haver mentions that "bilingual education advocates interpret the data differently" but does not present the counterarguments correctly: She claims that "bilingual education advocates" attribute the gains to smaller class size and changes in reading instruction (p. xi). Not this advocate: There are several much more compelling arguments:

Proposition 227 took force in 1998, at the same time the new SAT9 test was introduced. Research (Linn, Graue, and Sanders, 1990) has shown that after new tests are introduced, test scores rise, which is why commercial tests need to be recalibrated every few years. Typical test score inflation is about 1.5 to two points per year, which accounts for a great deal of the gains seen in California. "Test inflation" is especially prevalent in California where punishments for lower scores are severe, and rewards for higher scores are generous. This pressure has resulted in districts using unusual and extraordinary means for raising test scores, some of which have nothing to do with increased competence.

Among the bogus means of increasing test scores are extensive training in certain test-taking skills and selective testing, i.e. excluding low scoring children from taking the test. Asimov (2000) suggests that selective testing may have occurred in California. She reported that in many cases in which SAT9 scores increased from year to year, the number of students tested decreased. According to Asimov, "questionable pairings" appeared in 22 San Francisco Area school districts. And of course some test-taking skills will raise scores without an increase in competence: If there is no penalty for guessing, for example, simply encouraging guessing will raise scores. Use of these means to raise scores is like claiming to raise the temperature of the room by lighting a match under the thermometer.

4