Cancellation of ESL classes
and Textbook Selection

Comments by Dean Lowenstein, Cheryl Howard,
Oscar DeHaro and Linda Guebert

---

Oscar De Haro expresses concern
about cancellation of daytime ESL classes

To: Cheryl Howard

From: Oscar De Haro

Date: 10/15/99 1:07pm

Subject: Re. ESl: What the hell is going on.

Gaither/Cheryl:

On or about August 10, 1999 -at the beginning of this fall semester, several of us advocates of/for the ESL classes/population met with you, Gaither, to inquire about the unannounced cancellation of 3 to 4 ESL Classes. You agreed to reinstate them - and eventually 2 to 3 of them were allowed to continue. My rationale for the request to reinstate them was the unfamiliarity and non-use of Tele-registration system by this particular population. I had also asked you, to PLEASE notify me/my Office of changes in ESL offerings. The reason for that request is because my Office, together with Mary Holcomb is the only Office on Campus where bilingual personnel can assist these students and my Office does much of the recruiting and enrolling of these students. My Office is also the place where ESL students come for 'filing' their complaints and expressing their feelings of discrimination.

On September 15, 1999 I sent an e-mail, asking both of you to PLEASE let me know of any decisions related to the ESL classes/curriculum. I had made this request because I ad heard that a change was taking place in the spring semester English 500 offerings. Cheryl never replied to my inquiry and concern. Your reply was quite convincing that the change was minimal. One section would be canceled, but would be re-opened if the scheduled section were to fill and a waiting list created.

Now, I have learned that ALL Day ESL classes will be canceled for Spring.

Is this so?. And if so, why have you not heeded my PLEASE to inform my Office of what changes both of you are contemplating. I also have suggested on several occasions that the "ESL Committee" be re-organized to address this sort of issues with ESL matters. You, Gaither, are the only one who has asked for me to call a meeting. Frankly, though - that is not my area, but I will - since it is obvious it is necessary. Students are feeling the 'discrimination' for real. And it is incumbent upon us, as an institution, to address those feelings - because I believe they will become more vocal, if we don't address them now. I am not a happy camper as are my colleagues who work closely with this ESL population (tax payers, I may add). I am available to call a meeting of all interested parties - but, I'd ask that you let me know if that is what I should do.

Oscar De Haro

---

Cheryl Howard responds to Oascar DeHaro regarding Cancellation of ESL classes

From: Cheryl Howard

To: Oscar De Haro

Date: 10/18/99

CC: Mary Holcomb, Skip Hunter, Gaither Loewenstein, Nancy Proto-Robinson, Rick Stewart, Don Vasr

Priority: Normal Date sent: 10/18/99 12:58 PM

Reply to: RE. ESL - What the Heli is going on!!

Oscar, Your accusations about ESL classes reflect several misunderstandings that I will
attempt to clarify. First of all, I did not answer to your first e-mail because Gaither told me he had already addressed your scheduling concerns while I was teaching my classes. He also told me that if you wanted to have a meeting, that was fine with him. As an admininstrator, his response was entirely appropriate. As a member of the faculty, I really had nothing to add because I make recommendations, not final decisions, about scheduling.

While I appreciate your interest in our ESL offerings, your statements suggest a lack of knowledge of what has been done to "advocate" for these students (honestly, I'm not part of any "evil empire").

1. After consulting with ESL faculty, I was able to communicate to my former dean that all levels of ESL classes should be offered each semester. I also communicated that day and night classes would help meet the needs of each particular basis. Because of low enrollments, it was agreed these sections would be offered on a trial basis only. Now the history of continued low enrollments has been demonstrated, and I can no longer plead, "We need to just give them a chance."

2. Two or three years ago I met with faculty from the Adult School to see if we could offer a class at a level below ENG 7. (You may not be aware that MG may not duplicate adult school offerings.) ENG 500 was added to the ESL curriculum as a result of this meeting.

3. Last year I met with Michael Lauletta, Director of the Adult School, and Rex Eiffert, Assistant Director, to address concerns from UAS faculty that our classes were pulling their students away from their program. (Imagine that!) They both agreed that we have different goals for our classes and saw no conflict among our classes.

4. I worked with the Public Relations office and an ESL student to develop a brochure to publicize our ESL classes and the Adult School classes. Although it had some errors because I was not offered an opportunity to review it, I was told it was distributed this summer.

5. There will actually be a new ESL class offered this summer on a trial basis. This is a Speaking and Listening class, created and developed by Anne Lindenfeld; I helped her with the course outlines, etc.

6. Last year when you sent other angry e-mail complaining about an instructor, I immediately went to evaluate this person before the scheduled timeline. I then came to you and reported the positive outcome from both students and my own observation.

My role in ESL is an informal one. I was asked by my former dean to help coordinate what I thought would be the ESL curriculum and faculty. I will continue in this capacity for a limited time. I meet and consult with instructors on both formal and informal bases. I am also involved in the evaluation process. No stipend has ever been offered_or asked for. I do it because I believe our ESL offerings, limited though they are and must be for now, provide an important service to our students and help them progress toward their college goals.

Although I am offended by your language and the inappropriateness of your e-mail, I have tried to address your accusations. I hope you will be very careful about using words such as "discrimination" when you do not have all the information. Please be advised that I will not respond to any more of these attacks.

Cheryl Howard

October 18, 1999 letter from Linda Guebert and Laurie Vasquez regarding above issues
and see below the Oct 18 letter from Guebert to the Senate.

Linda Guebert
Discusses Academic Freedom
and Textbook Selection

To Nancy Proto-Robinson, President of the Academic Senate

Nancy - This is the background on the issue of academic freedom that I would like to put on the agenda of the Academic Senate. Please feel free to duplicate it for the Senate.

I have been a part-time instructor at M.C. since 1992 (with one semester off). I have an M.Ed., with a specialization in second language teaching and almost 20 yrs. experience in ESL, which has included teaching. curriculum development, and teacher training in TESL certificate programs. I frequently give ESL training workships and make presentations at ESL conferences.

In 1994 I wrote new course outlines for all of the college's ESL courses (5, 7, 9, II, 500) because, as full-time English faculty said at the time, I was the "obvious person to do it." Over the years I have been at MC I have served as resource for new ESL instructors, met with counselors, consulted with Lynda Myers about assessment, attended community college level meetings at conferences, and done much more to develop and promote the college's ESL program. Last year, as you know, I received the Academic Senate's Faculty of Excellence Award.

For many years I was the only ESL faculty and I chose the textbooks I used, with approval from Dean Bell. I tried out a number of different series and at the same time developed integrated theme units for English 7, 9, and 11, which incorporated materials from a variety of sources and some of my own. I eventually settled on a couple of texts which I used with my own materials. I made my materials available when other ESL instructors were hired, but never insisted that they use them.

Last fall a meeting of ESL instructors was held with Cheryl Howard to discuss implementing new texts. I objected to some of the proposed texts because I had already tried them and rejected them. I also felt that the proposed texts did not work well together and that there would be no time to use the materials I had developed. I was also concerned that it would be a financial hardship on the students because the number of required texts was being increased. Despite my objections, these textbooks were chosen at a meeting one week later (hardly enough time to peruse texts) at a meeting which I was unable to attend because of previous commitments. The texts were implemented in Spring 1999.

With the sanction of Ruth Lincoln, I continued to use the previous texts and the materials I had developed in Eng 7 and 9 in Lake; I was also "allowed" to use the previous texts and my materials with Eng 7 this fall in Ukiah. Now, however, I am being told that I cannot use the text I selected for Eng 1 1 in Lake despite Ruth's approval. Nor, presumably, will I be able to choose texts or use the program I have developed in any other ESL course I may be asked to teach.

I think this raises serious questions about academic freedom especially for part-time faculty. The current full-time English faculty has no background in ESL (ESL and English are really separate disciplines), yet they are making final decisions about suitable texts. It would seem that almost no consideration is being given to my professional expertise and experience, especially as it relates to knowledge of the ESL population at MC. (Other ESL instructors have far less experience than I have). I feel I must resist pressure to teach in a way in which I am not comfortable (heavy reliance on texts), which discards what amounts to more than five years of curriculum deveolopment, and which I believe is not in the best interests of the students.

I believe that this situation has implications for all faculty and for MC. As I understand it, the current MC textbook policy dictates the use of the same text in different sections of the same course, the choice to be determined by full-time faculty. I believe that if course content is being taught (and in my case there is no question of this, since I wrote the course outlines) and if students are learning, there should be leeway in text selection. I really see no problem if different instructors choose different texts for the same course (This is done on campuses everywhere), and I don't think part-time faculty should be treated differently from full-time faculty in this respect.

The college faces the loss of qualified professionals like myself if we are not allowed the freedom to choose the materials we use to teach our classes. In my opinion the textbook selection policy needs revision in order to ensure that academic freedom for all faculty is maintained.
file ://c :\windows\TEMIP\eud83B2 .htm 11/12/99

Dean Lowenstein's Perspective
on ESL and Academic Freedom

Memo To: Nancy Proto-Robinson, Faculty Senate President
From Gaither Loewenstein, Dean of Instruction
Sub ject ESL Scheduling for Spring Semester and Textbook Policy Interpretation

The purpose of this memorandum is to respond to your request for clarification concerning two matters: I) The schedule of ESL classes for the Spring semester and 2) My interpretation of the College's textbook policy as it pertains to Don Vasconcellos' decision to require all instructors of English 11 to use the textbook selected by the full- time English faculty in consultation with part-time ESL instructors.

ESL Course Scheduling for Spring, 2000 Semester

Last August, a few days before the start of the Fall semester, I made a decision to cancel several ESL classes whose enrollments appeared destined to fall below the minimum 15 students allowable under the policy memorandum adopted by Instructional Administrators in July, 1994. Shortly thereafter, I was visited by Oscar DeHaro, Patricia MacDonald, Laurie Vazquez, and Jubenal Vasquez, who expressed their objections to this decision. In response to their concerns, I reinstated the classes in question and agreed to allow them to run, subject to the following criteria:

a) For courses in which two sections were being offered, a minimum of 13 students would be required to avoid cancellation; and

b) For courses in which only one section was available, a minimum of 11 students would be required.

Of the classes that were reinstated, two achieved the agreed upon minimum class size and the remaining classes were subsequently cancelled due to low enrollment. My actions in this case belie the notion expressed by Ms. Guebert and Ms. Vazquez that we are "sticking to strict enrollment quotas" in making decisions pertaining to class cancellations.

At that same meeting, I indicated that in future semesters, my intent was to schedule only one section of each ESL class, in light of the fact that we do not currently have sufficient enrollment in our ESL program to warrant multiple sections. I suggested that these courses should be offered either all in the daytime or all at night in order to provide a certain amount of predictability and continuity for our ESL students. Several of the participants expressed concerns regarding this approach, contending that either scenario would result in some segment of the student population being underserved. While acknowledging and sympathizing with this dilemma, I reiterated my belief that the College's current overall ESL enrollments are insufficient to enable us to offer both daytime and nighttime ESL classes within the constraints imposed by our policies on minimum class size. My rationale was reluctantly acknowledged by those in attendance

Subsequent to this meeting, the full-time English faculty, following consultation with the part-time ESL instructors, recommended that ESL courses be scheduled at night for the Spring 2000 and future semesters. Students who are unable to take ESL classes at night will be referred to the adult school, which offers a range of daytime ESL classes. In this manner, the maximum feasible number of students will be served within the constraints imposed by the College's available resources.

Having expressed my intentions in a clear and forthright manner at our August meeting, I was taken aback by the response to the Spring schedule. Specifically, I received an E mail from Oscar De Haro headed by the phrase "WHAT THE HELL IS GOTNG ON!!!", in which he professed to be surprised by the fact that fewer sections of ESL offerings had been scheduled. Both this E-mail and a subsequent memorandum from Ms. Guebert and Ms. Vazquez were broadly circulated and laced with thinly veiled accusations of racism. (I have attached copies of these documents, along with my response to Oscar, for review by the Academic Senate.) In light of the fact that two of the three authors of these communications were present at the August meeting in which I had clearly expressed my intentions and rationale, I found their allegations of inadequate consultation to be, at best, disingenuous. I was also deeply disturbed by their obvious attempts to besmirch my character in the course of expressing their opposition to my decision.

I recognize the importance of having people at the College who are willing to speak out forcefully as advocates of special needs populations. At the same time, however, I believe that the students whom they represent are better served by a more collegial, cooperative approach than by a confrontational environment characterized by baseless allegations and rhetorical excess. I continue to be willing to discuss matters pertaining to the scheduling of ESL courses, to share the enrollment history data upon which my decisions have been based and to meet with any individual or group having concerns about this issue.


Interpretation of Textbook Policy

The textbook "controversy" alluded to in your recent communication arose as a result of differing interpretations of the College's textbook policy between myself and Ruth Lincoln, Assistant Dean of the Lake Center. In this particular case, Linda Guebert, a part time instructor scheduled to teach an ESL course at the Lake Center during the Spring 2000 semester, had instructed the bookstore manager to order a textbook for her class that was different from the text selected by the full-time English faculty in consultation with part-time ESL instructors. The bookstore manager asked for my interpretation of the College's textbook policy prior to placing this order. In response to this inquiry, I determined that Ms. Guebert should be ordering the text that will be used by ESL faculty on the Ukiah campus, ie. the one selected by the full-time English faculty. The basis of my decision was the College's textbook policy, which states as follows:

"Where possible, like textbooks should be used for each class section offered at all locations within the college district... Textbook selections for a course should be recommended jointly by all full-time instructors in the subject field in consultation with appropriate part-time faculty."

In this case, it is my understanding that the full-time faculty member with oversight responsibilities in ESL solicited input from all part-time ESL faculty members concerning a textbook recommendation. Two of the part-time ESL instructors forwarded their recommendations; the book selected was one of the two that had been recommended through this process. Ms. Guebert was included in the solicitation of input, but did not forward a textbook recommendation to the full-time faculty; instead, she submitted an order for a textbook of her own choosing to the bookstore manager.

My reasons for supporting the recommendation of the full-time English faculty in this matter are as follows:

1) Uniformity in textbook adoption is desirable for both operational and pedagogical reasons. Operationally, it facilitates the efficiency of the textbook purchasing process by avoiding multiple purchases for the same class and the resulting problems in terms of inventory management, return of unused textbooks and the like. Pedagogically, it can be argued that the use of a common curriculum, including textbooks, facilitates consistency in student learning across the district.

2) The College's textbook policy clearly indicates the central role that should be played by full-time faculty in textbook selection; moreover, the policy is also clear in its statement that like textbooks should be used throughout the district "where possible". In my view, it is certainly possible to do so in this case.

3) Oversight of the ESL program has been placed in the hands of the College's full-time faculty, who have taken on this responsibility willingly. I believe that responsibility and authority must coincide; in short, if the full-time English faculty take on responsibility for program oversight, they should be given the authority to do this job as they see fit. Had I sided with the part-time faculty member in this case, I would have been undermining the authority that has been legitimately granted to the full-time English faculty. They, in turn, would then have a valid justification for abdicating their responsibility for program oversight.

Having said all of this, I must also acknowledge that there is a certain amount of ambiguity in the College's text book policy, which, I believe, forms the basis of Ruth Lincoln's differing interpretation. In her support of Ms. Guebert's position. Ruth cited the following section of the textbook policy:

"For courses where no full-time instructor is assigned, a part-time instructor may be asked to recommend a text to the appropriate Dean or Assistant Dean".

In this case, Ruth contended that since there are currently no full-time instructors assigned to teach ESL classes, it was consistent with the textbook policy to have a part time instructor select a textbook and recommend it to "the appropriate Dean or Assistant Dean". In Ruth's view, she is the appropriate Assistant Dean, since the course is to be taught at the Lake Center. While I do not concur with this interpretation, it would certainly be within the parameters of the College's textbook policy to make such a determination.

At the last Dean's Council meeting, a spirited discussion was held in which the above viewpoints were expressed by their respective adherents. In cases such as this, where two instructional administrators who may have jurisdiction over the matter in question are in disagreement, it is incumbent upon their supervisor to decide whose position will carry the day. Accordingly, Don Vasconcellos, Executive Vice President for Instruction, following the discussion that had ensued, made a decision to support purchasing the same textbook district-wide, as had been recommended by the full-time English faculty.

Although the decision-making process in this particular case has already run its course, it has highiighted certain inconsistencies in the College's textbook selection policy. As an administrator who prefers clear policy directives that are as free as possible of multiple interpretations, I would support efforts to re-examine and, if appropriate, revise the College's textbook policy with the goal of achieving greater clarity.


Conclusion

I hope that the preceding discussion serves to clarify the two issues that have come to the attention to the Academic Senate. Please let me know if I may provide additional information to facilitate the Senate's discussion in this regard.

Ed note: As of 4/12/00, the academic senate is still discussing a resolution on textbook selection. Most of the senate members agree that the administration should be removed from the decision-making role in such matters, but the part-time reps (Bell and Collins) are not satisfied with the the part of the resolution which subordinates part-timers to the judgment of full-timers whenever there is disagreement over textbook selection. For the latest resolution, go to the Senate web site (will be linked from here soon).