29, no. 3 (Spring 1998): 9-10
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
No Works Cited |
|
Restructuring Language Departments: Going Down the (Little) Rocky Road
Dave McAlpine
RESTRUCTURING , a word that creates immediate fear in the minds of all academics. “Will my department survive” “Will languages still be taught at my college (or my university)?” “How will find another position at my age?” These are just a few of the many questions asked when restructuring, downsizing, enrollment management—or whatever term is vogue—is rumored or announced on campus. This article is presented as a record of one language department that survived a major restructuring and, indeed, is much stronger because of it.
On 1 June 1993, the chancellor of the University of Arkansas, Little Rock, announced that the university was entering a restructuring phase because, for seven out of the past ten years, the school had spent more than it realized in revenues. The total imbalance in the budget was approximately $4 million. Charles Hathaway, the chancellor, realized that the task of reducing this deficit would not be easy. He stated “We select academic administrators at the chair and dean level based on their academic successes and they, rightfully so, are advocates for their departments and colleges. To ask these administrators to put aside discipline loyalties and think of the university as a whole is asking a great deal. The university is greater than the simple sum of the disciplines composing it and we must operate with this in mind.”
Although no rumors circulated that the existing foreign language department was in any jeopardy of the restructuring, over $1 million of the debt had to be addressed by the academic side of the university. Discussions were held to eliminate the Arkansas International Center, a statewide organization that coordinates visits by internationals to the state and directs programs of global education for teachers and short-term training for internationals. The Intensive English Language Program, a unit designed to provide English-language training for university-level international students, was being scrutinized as well. Both of these programs fell under the jurisdiction of the associate vice chancellor for international and interdisciplinary programs, who also was charged with all programming for study abroad and oversight of the major and minor in international studies at the university. All three units (study abroad and international studies are linked) had an indirect relationship with the existing foreign language department.
The members of the foreign language department brainstormed what they could do to preserve their own programs, should that be necessary, and those programs previously described. The result of this brainstorming session was a document that suggested the creation of a “mega-unit” combining all international education—academic, quasi-academic, and nonacademic—under one umbrella. On 1 October 1995, the provost of the university announced the creation of the Division of International and Second Language Studies, the mega-unit suggested in the proactive document of the former foreign language department. Those involved in writing of the proposal felt that their proactive stance was responsible for the creation of the new unit.
The new structure, known on campus as DISLS, now serves as the home for eleven units, including the Arkansas International Center, the Intensive English Language Program, programs abroad, and the baccalaureate degree program in international studies, as previously described; DISLS also houses the baccalaureate degree programs in foreign languages, the Language Resources Center, the second language education component of the masters in education, the state-approved endorsement in ESL education, and an endowed program in Middle Eastern studies. With the creation of DISLS, major emphasis has been given to writing grants and creating publicity for the new organization.
As might be expected, there are some problems and disadvantages associated with the new unit. The first challenge was to bring the units together, physical, under one roof. Before the restructuring, many of the organizations that would become part of DISLS were located all across campus. The relocation process took until February 1997 to accomplish. Second, each of the units had its own identity and culture. The difficulty in developing, under a tight deadline, a new mode of functioning for such a diverse group, was probably the greatest challenge the director of the unit faced. Third, the joining of so many different groups within a complex state university system created feelings of suspicion and rivalry. Under the new structure, classified personnel, nonclassified personnel, and faculty members must work together. Each classification carries distinct expectations of workload and work schedules that may cause some hard feelings among colleagues in the division . Fourth, the opportunity now existed to share resources and services. Determining whose responsibility it was to assign space and who was to pay for common services produced a few tense moments.
The fifth problem resulted from the coming together of many individual units that had had their own directors. A hierarchy of titles and reporting system had to be established. A structure was designed for campus use; at the same time, the autonomy of structure and titles needed by each unit in dealing with its external constituents was maintained. The sixth challenge involved the sharing of staff. By rights, shared personnel should be used efficiently. To date, few shared positions or cross-teaching opportunities have been developed. However, DISLS may soon establish its first position shared by three of the combined units. Seventh, each unit, as expected, had its own computer setup. Combinations of IBM clones and Macintosh platforms were brought together, and an Ethernet system enabled each member of DISLS to communicate by e-mail, use the Internet, and print over the LAN.
Eight, at the university, each unit creates its own governance document. The academic units, of course, have rules and regulations relating to promotion and tenure, committee service, teaching loads, merits raises, and so on. The nonacademic units are more concerned with working conditions for twelve-month, classified employees. These differences can make colleagues feel that they are being treated unequally.
Finally, it is important to realize that not every participant in a restructuring will be happy with the inevitable changes. There are also those individuals who relish the opportunity to criticize any situation that they believe affects their autonomy at the university, An administrator of any new unit must not let complaints, resistance, or other obtacles destroy the vision. Many hours of personnel-related work will be an essential part of any activity complex as the one described here.
Are there any advantages to the new structure? Obviously, the university's first goal was to save money. This piece of the restructuring process paid approximately $100,000 toward the debt. The money came mostly from positions that were eliminated, such as that of the vice chancellor for international and interdisciplinary programs. For the university, a second benefit is in having all units that engage in international activity—whether teaching a language or arranging for students or faculty members to go abroad—be in a “one-stop-shopping” location.
Third, both American students and international students now benefit from daily encounters with each other in the Language Resources Center, in the classrooms, in the faculty offices, or in the administrative area. Also, more foreign visitors are ending up as speakers in more university classes, and faculty members have the opportunity to serve as trainers for international visitors. Fourth, the pooling of resources and the combining of a number of programs under one roof has led to expanded services for the public and to increased opportunities for the staff. For example, several staff people now greet and serve anyone who enters the division. Phones are always answered by a human being, Graduate assistants have a greater variety of experiences as they work in the division; they may be teaching assistants one semester and arrange international travel the next. Fifth, faculty members, staff, and administrators from all programs are housed together in new space that can be better utilized by everyone. Teaching rooms, office space, storage space, and the Language Resource Center are shared by all members of the division.
Sixth, a unit that has some twenty-five full-time employees has higher visibility and more political clout on campus. An operating budget of over $1 million, excluding salaries, allows for major purchases that could never have occurred under the single-unit system. Above all, no international or language programs were lost as a result of the restructuring. Students and faculty members have the same services that they had before the restructuring, and, in fact the services are more efficient and the opportunities are greater.
Restructuring is a scary word. The road a department must travel during restructuring is not an easy one; it is indeed a rocky one. But by being proactive, a language department can survive and, yes, be even stronger. The road is worth travelling!.
The author is Director of the Division of International and Second Language Studies at the University of Arkansas, Little Rock. This article is based on his presentation at ADFL Summer Seminar East, 12–14 June 1997, in Washington, DC.
Work Cited
Hathaway, Charles E. “Statement by Chancellor Charles E. Hathaway”. Univ. of Arkansas, Little Rock. 1 June 1993.
© 1998 by the Association of Departments of Foreign Languages. All Rights Reserved.
ADFL Bulletin 29, no. 3 (Spring 1998): 9-10 |
|
|---|
|
|
|
|
No Works Cited |
|
