|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DEPARTMENTAL mergers are rarely initiated by members of the departments concerned. Faculty members are understandably protective of the complex network of relationships, programs, policies, and procedures that have evolved within their department: they are understandably reluctant to give up their familiar turf and risk losing a degree of autonomy by becoming part of a larger group. So when Provost Joseph Moore at Mansfield University in northern Pennsylvania decided to combine the English and foreign language departments in late 1998 he asked Walter Sanders, the chair of the English department, to bring in an outside consultant to help ensure a smooth transition. With advice from MLA headquarters, Catherine Porter, the chair of the foreign language department at the State University of New York, Cortland, was selected to conduct on-campus interviews in February 1999 and to make recommendations before the planned April merger.
Porter was selected at least in part because Mansfield and Cortland have a good deal in common. Both are state schools, former “normal schools” that still emphasize teacher training; both have developed strong undergraduate liberal arts programs; both are located in rural areas and draw a significant proportion of their student body from the surrounding regions. In both schools, the English department outnumbers the foreign language department by two or three to one. The language department at Cortland calls itself International Communications and Culture; although the name has sometimes led to confusion, over the years it has allowed the department to house such disparate programs as computer languages (for a brief period in the late 1970s), cinema studies, English as a second language, and (as of this writing) American Sign Language. And the name has of course made it possible to avoid the ethnocentricity implicit in the label “foreign” (although for more than a decade after the name change the college computer system persisted in alphabetizing the department under “F”). Porter, who has recently retired, taught French at Cortland from 1969 to 2001 and chaired the department for a total of ten years; she also filled in for colleagues in the English department on two occasions by teaching freshman composition and Introduction to Language Study.
Mansfield University, founded in 1857, is one of fourteen institutions of the state system of higher education in Pennsylvania; it is located in the state’s northern tier, close to the New York border. There are 3,000 students in twenty-two different academic programs. The most heavily enrolled programs are music, education, criminal justice administration, and business. The university offers BA and BS degrees as well as BSE degrees and several masters programs, for example, in education and music. There is also a nursing program. The town itself has a population of approximately 3,000. The university is currently experiencing controlled enrollment growth brought about in part by a recently introduced “friendly neighbor” policy that offers reduced tuition to students from fourteen counties in the southern tier of New York. The university’s finances appear to be in good order.
At the time of the merger, Mansfield’s English department consisted of fourteen permanent members, while the foreign language faculty numbered five (one each in French and German, three in Spanish). The university offers BA and BSE programs as well as minors in each language. Five students and an exchange professor come to campus each fall in an exchange program with Volgograd State University in Russia. The exchange professor offers Russian 101 and also teaches a course in the English department. Faculty members in both departments have their offices and do most of their teaching in the same building, Belknap Hall. Relations between the two departments have been quite cordial over the years.
Involving a consultant in the merger came at a turning point: the English and foreign language departments had been informed that they were to merge, but no concrete steps had yet been taken. Faculty members were very much aware of other departmental mergers at Mansfield: during the four or five previous years, mathematics and computer science, history and political science, and education and special education had been joined. The precedents set by those mergers were to some extent reassuring. No reduction in staff occurred, department size did not change, and reassigned time for chairs and assistant chairs was not reduced. The provost indicated that his decision had been prompted by declining foreign language enrollments and a perceived weakness of departmental leadership. The expressed intent of the merger was not to save money but rather to strengthen the foreign language programs by integrating them with an English department that was relatively large, dynamic, and strongly supportive of the teaching of foreign languages and literatures. (English is the only major at Mansfield that has a two-year foreign language requirement.) To help focus discussion on the process and its goals, before Porter’s visit Sanders distributed an article by Peter Hoff and Mary Pinkerton from the ADFL Bulletin about the recent merger of an English and foreign language department at the University of Wisconsin, Whitewater.
In the two days Porter spent on the Mansfield campus, her first task was to speak with members of both departments to identify their principal concerns and collect suggestions for constructive collaboration. A few members of the English department expressed some ambivalence about the merger and some concern about losing their own sense of departmental identity, but on the whole the English faculty seemed to feel unthreatened by the prospect. Indeed some members saw it as a positive step, an opportunity to move in new directions. As members of the smaller of the two departments and of the one that had apparently been singled out as having “problems” that needed to be “solved,” foreign language faculty members were quite concerned about maintaining the integrity of their programs as well as their collective identity. What would the new department be called? How would it be administered? On what basis would budgetary allocations be made? What role would, or should, English faculty members play in foreign language curricular decisions or in personnel decisions? Would enrollment pressures on the English side lead over time to a loss of foreign language positions? How would peer evaluation of teaching and scholarship be handled? Would there be pressure to lower standards, that is, to restructure language courses to make them less demanding and thus more attractive? Would limits on class size be maintained? Would small upper-level courses needed for majors continue to be supported? Would there be pressure to teach upper-level language courses in English rather than in the foreign language to draw in more students? Could the foreign language major programs be sustained and strengthened, or would the foreign language faculty be reduced to a service section, never going beyond intermediate language courses and perhaps even required to teach English or other extradisciplinary courses to survive? All these concerns reflected a strong commitment on the part of the members of the foreign language faculty—not so much to the existing administrative structures as to the disciplines in which they had been trained, their own scholarly interests, and the programs to which they had devoted their professional lives.
It is fair to say that members of both groups were able to identify potential benefits from the merger. Faculty members might well have increased flexibility in teaching assignments—new opportunities for team teaching, for example, or the possibility of developing and teaching interdisciplinary courses. Shared resources (human and financial) could lead to enhanced instruction in areas of common interest such as linguistics or teaching methods. There ought to be more resources available for new ventures—perhaps an ESL program or new recruitment and retention initiatives. A new language laboratory, needed and already planned, could become a versatile state-of-the-art computer laboratory benefiting the English program as well as foreign languages. The larger combined department would have greater visibility among the student body and might be able to attract a larger pool of potential majors and minors. It could also become a more powerful presence at the faculty level, a stronger, more unified voice in favor of writing programs, foreign language initiatives, and the humanities in general.
A few weeks after the consultant’s visit, the Porter Report was presented to the provost and the faculties of both departments. The report listed specific suggestions, some made by faculty members and others based on Porter’s own experience. (These appear in abbreviated form in an appendix at the end of this article.) The report’s goal was not to prescribe a set of steps that would guarantee a successful merger or to anticipate in detail the structures and policies of the newly combined department. With the understanding that some of the suggestions might well turn out to be inappropriate or inapplicable in the Mansfield context or unfeasible because of costs, the report emphasized the process of evaluating the suggestions and stressed the importance of discussing the report as a whole as a useful first step in bringing the departments together.
Although foreign language faculty members had expressed some resistance to the merger earlier, only after the Porter Report was distributed did the extent and precise nature of the concerns become clear. On 7 April 1999, someone distributed an unsigned document purporting to represent the sentiments of the foreign language faculty regarding several of the suggestions and recommendations in the report. The document, somewhat defensive in tone, listed twelve items of concern, including: (1) foreign language faculty members would invariably be outvoted in any departmental action because they would be outnumbered; (2) if budgets were combined, the English side would be favored, again for numerical reasons; (3) if the needs of the whole department had to be taken into consideration in defining new positions or replacements, the foreign language side would suffer. Each point was presented in detail, and the writer added in conclusion: “We recognize that the report does offer various positive suggestions (unfortunately time constraints have not permitted discussing all of them here).” In fact, the document failed to mention even one of these “positive suggestions”; in short, the foreign language department seemed prepared to support a merger in name only. It quickly became clear, however, that the views expressed in the document were those of the author and were not necessarily shared by the entire foreign language faculty. In fact, for the overwhelming majority of the newly merged department, the Porter Report has been a steady source of direction and encouragement.
It should be noted that the two departments had a long history of working together to promote mutual interests. The English programs, both BA and BSE, have for more than thirty years required second-year proficiency in a foreign language. Some English BSE students complete a second major in a foreign language and thus become certified to teach both English and the language in which they major. Foreign language faculty members have taught courses for the women’s studies minor, a minor housed in English (now languages and literature). Faculty members from both disciplines have worked with one another on various university committees. In September 1998, perhaps with some anticipation of a merger on the horizon, the English department sought and was granted approval to search for a linguist to fill a vacancy. Some faculty members in both disciplines saw this position as a possible bridge between the two departments. Care was taken to include foreign language colleagues in all aspects of the campus interviews, lunches, presentations, and evening receptions, although the search committee itself did not include a member of the foreign language department. The possibility of developing a collaborative linguistics minor emerged from discussions begun during the search process, and the minor is currently being developed. Because the linguist who accepted the position had considerable experience in study abroad, she was asked by the provost to direct the university’s study-abroad effort as part of her course load; thus another link was established even before the merger took place.
The election of a chair for the combined department also took place in a collaborative process before the merger could become official. The chair of the foreign language department had informally announced his intention to retire within a year. Sanders, who was then completing a term as chair of English, stood for reelection and was chosen by the membership of both departments to serve a three-year term, following procedures specified in a collective bargaining agreement.
Apart from the chair’s election, the first serious concern to be faced jointly arose in March 1999. A month before the effective date of the merger, the chairs of the foreign language and English departments received a memorandum from the provost that stated: “I am beginning a process of review to consider terminating, or placing in moratorium, a variety of academic programs [. . .]. In your area, I am suggesting that we review the following programs: Bachelor Degree: German/German Education (B.S.E.).” The reason given was that “enrollment in these programs has been minimal [. . .].” The review was delayed until the beginning of the 1999 fall term, after the April merger. Members of the two departments coordinated their response, using the summer to prepare presentations to the college-wide academic planning committee (APC), which is chaired by the provost. (The results of APC discussions are reported to the faculty senate, but final decisions are made by the provost.) A professor of German made two presentations before the APC, and the English chair contributed a letter in support of maintaining the majors in German, detailing some of the initiatives for foreign language study that had not yet had time to be realized. As a result of these efforts, the BA and BSE majors in German are still in place. The departments’ mutual support in this effort offered a promising model for further cooperation.
Concern with student reactions led the new chair to contact all continuing English and foreign language majors, informing them of the merger and assuring them that their programs of study would not be affected by the event. Earlier mergers had brought about student protests, and a number of parents had called with concerns. As it turned out, since the academic programs from each of the former departments remained intact, majors in English and foreign languages had little difficulty adjusting to the merger. During the summer of 1999, noting that there was very little data regarding the language preparation and interests of the incoming students, Sanders and a member of the foreign language faculty worked together to administer a freshman language interest and preference form to poll all first-time students during summer orientation. Students were asked what languages they had studied previously, where and for how long, and how well they had done. They were also invited to describe any special circumstances, such as having studied or traveled abroad, courses they had taken that did not include speaking, and the time since the student had studied the languages. Because students pursuing a BA degree in any program at Mansfield have the option of completing either a 202-level foreign language (second-year proficiency) or a minor in any of several fields, the students were also asked how far in a foreign language they might go (through 202? minor? or major?) if the language option was selected and whether they might be interested in study abroad. This effort resulted in a detailed profile of the entering students’ language experience and preferences. The intent was to identify interest groups and attempt to bring together, for example, students who had expressed an interest in studying abroad with students and members of the faculty who had done so. This undertaking was partially successful, but a series of illnesses in the department and other complications made it impossible to carry out all the proposed initiatives right away.
The first year of the merger brought predictable growing pains. There was concern about budget allocations, confusion at times about who was to sign forms, and some uneasiness about the combined department’s new name, Languages and Literature. (Some English faculty members felt that they had lost their disciplinary identity, since the word “English” now appears only in course listings.) The thorniest problem to date, the issue of faculty evaluations, arose early in the fall of 1999. The new department had inherited two separate evaluation committees and faced a telling decision: could the two disciplines continue to function separately in this sensitive area or should they combine forces? Perhaps mostly for labor-saving reasons, the department decided to adopt a centrally coordinated approach to faculty evaluations. The collective bargaining agreement requires an annual evaluation by students, peers, and chair of each nontenured faculty member and five-year reviews of tenured faculty. Nontenured faculty members are observed twice each semester by their peers and once by the department chair. With two first-year teachers (the linguist and a new hire in Spanish), several nontenured faculty members, and several part-time instructors to be evaluated, as well as two faculty members whose applications for tenure or promotion were to be considered, these matters presented an organizational challenge. Deadlines were met, however, and the centrally coordinated approach is now well established as an effective way to manage this responsibility.
Other complications included the distraction brought about by a delay in the conclusion of negotiation of the new system-wide contract; the prospect of a first system-wide strike was a frequent subject of discussion into November 1999. Internal staffing problems were also a source of stress that diverted faculty energies and attention. One Spanish instructor was on sabbatical leave in fall 1999; another, who had been named assistant chair, had been awarded a leave for the spring 2000 term. An adjunct hired to teach Spanish in the fall fell ill and had to be replaced at the last minute. As a result of Mansfield’s rural location, the adjunct pool in any discipline is necessarily small; since no Spanish replacement could be found, colleagues had to accept overloads—a solution that the department does not favor.
On balance, however, signs of progress outweighed the difficulties. For example, curriculum revisions put in place after the education and special education departments merged two years earlier promised to help promote foreign language study. The elementary and special education programs have been revised to include a requirement of at least one year of a foreign language for all majors in those fields, a move that became effective with the class entering in fall 2000; in addition, elementary education majors are now advised to consider completing at least a minor in a foreign language to fulfill their area of concentration requirement. The chair of the criminal justice administration department is working with the languages and literature department to create special sections of Spanish for criminal justice administration majors. Mansfield offered four sections of introductory Spanish in the summer of 2000, twice as many as in previous years, and the sections were near their maximum capacity of twenty-five students. In the summer of 2001, four sections of Spanish filled again, and two sections of French were added for the first time.
Perhaps the most telling instance of successful collaboration came in the sensitive area of searches to replace two retiring faculty members, one in English and one in French. English and foreign language faculty members served on both committees, sharing in interviews, presentations, meals, and receptions. Neither group had a sense of being outvoted by the other, although there had been some anxiety about that possibility.
So what was accomplished during the first year of the merger? Most important, perhaps, the two faculties have come to realize that they can trust and rely on one another. They had done so in their separate departments before, but the merger inevitably changed the nature of collegial relationships. It was not surprising that certain adjustments had to be made. Members of the combined department now seem to feel that the corner has been turned, and they are shifting their attention to new individual and collaborative projects. The German professor, who received faculty development funds allowing him to spend time in Jena during the summer of 2000, was given the green light to set up an exchange program in Germany; the program began on a small scale in 2000–01, and the department is looking forward to its expansion. The newly hired professor of French plans to develop exchanges in Canada and France. Given the new requirement for education majors, the department anticipates a need for additional sections of foreign language courses. Physical improvements are in progress as well: extensive renovations to Belknap Hall began in May 2001, and their completion was scheduled for 15 December. The provost has had the faculty working closely with the architect to help design offices, classrooms, equipment, and two new laboratories, one for foreign language instruction and one for writing instruction. These are encouraging signs and busy times for the languages and literature department; with a successful first year behind it and positive changes ahead, there is little inclination to look back with regret. All parties to this particular merger at Mansfield deserve credit for the collaborative spirit that has helped make it a success.
Hoff, Peter, and Mary Pinkerton. “Reconfiguring Language Departments: Friendly or Hostile Takeover?” ADFL Bulletin 30.2 (1999): 52-54. [Show Article]
—Find creative ways to reduce teaching loads; support team-teaching initiatives, new course development, recruitment-retention initiatives, interdisciplinary teaching, and so on, with released time wherever possible.
—Include a state-of-the-art computer-based language laboratory in plans for renovating the building, designed for use by English and FL classes (word processing, Internet assignments, e-mail penpals, digitized audio recording and playback, video capabilities); include satellite receivers to receive FL programming in French, German, and Spanish. Build released time for lab director’s position into job description of new hire; ideally, assign computer technician-programmer part-time for lab and for faculty development.
—Create a full-time position for a director of study abroad programs. The job description would include developing new programs, especially small-scale exchange programs (advantages: bringing foreign students to campus, keeping costs down for United States students abroad, minimal need for support apparatus abroad, possibility of faculty as well as student exchange); working with departments across the campus to design programs of value to their students (not necessarily including FL component); serving as campus host-adviser for foreign students and acting as a liaison with ESL instructors as appropriate; advocating for “globalization,” FL study; acting as a facilitator for faculty members traveling, doing research, and studying abroad.
—Explore language-across-the-curriculum initiatives analogous to writing-intensive program. Examples: 1-credit “add-ons” taught in FL to supplement specific discipline-based courses (students should be able to improve their FL skills and also increase their chances of doing well in the principal course); fifth-semester FL courses targeted for particular student populations, for example, Spanish for the health professions (or criminal justice), French for anthropology majors, German for physical education majors, any FL for travel and tourism majors, business majors, and so on.
—Develop public relations materials emphasizing the value of FL study as an enhancement to any major; publicize minor programs.
—Use students returning from study abroad to create enthusiasm for foreign study on campus: talks in dorms, feature articles in newspaper, special Web site, and so on.
—Experiment with dual-language courses taught in the FL but allow students to register for FL credit or as an elective; students in the latter category would be allowed to write exams and papers in English; subject matter could come from any discipline following a model known as “language across the curriculum.”
—Encourage trades of teaching assignments: FL person might teach an interdisciplinary course in a given semester while someone from English teaches an introductory language course (ideally with mentoring and released time).
—Explore ways of using upper-level FL students as undergraduate teaching assistants who would work in beginning and intermediate classes, leading small-group drills, communicative exercises, and the like. These students would sign up for a 300-level course that would be part of the teaching load of the beginning or intermediate instructor, allowing time for training TAs and preparing special materials.
—Consider scheduling introductory 4-credit language courses to meet four or five days per week (the fifth day could be a required lab). Consider redesigning intermediate course as a 4-credit course (with optional lab?); the fourth hour would be conversation focusing on specialized vocabulary for students in a variety of disciplines (travel and tourism, criminal justice, the health professions, social services, the natural sciences, etc.). Faculty members would be released from one course initially to prepare supplementary materials and to develop a training program for undergraduate TAs (these would be FL majors or other students with appropriate qualifications who would lead conversation sections). Grading of students in sections would be pass-fail based on attendance and minimal participation. Section leaders would earn one credit, would be evaluated on performance (periodic observations by a faculty member). A typical faculty member’s load would then be 4 + 4 + 3 + 1 (one credit would come for a team-teaching assignment, released time for preparation of a new course or for a research project, 1-credit “add-on” course, etc.). Alternatively, a faculty member might have a load of 4 + 4 + 3 (eleven credits) one semester and 4 + 3 + 3 + 3 (thirteen credits) the next.
© 2002 by the Association of Departments of Foreign Languages. All Rights Reserved.
|
|---|
|
|
|
