As colleges and universities grapple with budget cuts, at least one is coping with the situation by planning to reduce its language requirements.
At the University of Texas at Austin, the College of Liberal Arts wants to shrink the time students are required to spend in French, Spanish, German, and other language courses. Language departments’ budgets have been slashed by $1.8-million for the 2010-11 academic year. To accommodate that cut, adminstrators have proposed that students take only three semesters, or even two, instead of the standard four. One or two of those semesters would be more intensive than current courses are.
The proposals have spurred fierce debate about best practices in language instruction. Administrators who initiated the plan argue that it would improve teaching by focusing class time more effectively. The chairs of some language departments, however, say students would be confused by intensive courses and unprepared for advanced classes. Professors also worry that the changes would diminish the programs’ reputations.
“We don’t want to lose instructional time and lose time students have to process information,” says Peter Hess, chair of Germanic studies. In language courses, “there’s a lot more going on than ordering a burger at a restaurant. We teach cultural literacy.”
The change in the language requirement, if approved by a faculty committee this month, would affect all 10,000 students in the college, which offers 34 languages in eight departments. Sharper cuts, such as eliminating less popular programs, like Danish, are possible in subsequent years.
The trigger for such proposals is a mandate from the university that all departments in the College of Liberal Arts trim budgets for nontenured instructors by 20 to 33 percent for 2010-2011. Language departments must reduce their spending on graduate students and lecturers on yearly contracts, which means fewer sections of language courses.
If the four-semester requirement, which has been in place for at least two decades, were maintained, the remaining sections would have to take in more students. Administrators and professors say bigger classes would hurt language instruction.
As an alternative, at a meeting with department chairs over the summer, a dean proposed eliminating the requirement altogether, says Thomas J. Garza, an associate professor and director of the university’s Texas Language Center. Professors were outraged. Within 48 hours the dean sent out an e-mail message saying that idea was off the table.
Since then deans, department chairs, and other professors have spent hours meeting to figure out how to trim their budgets while maintaining teaching quality. Administrators proposed making the requirement a year of intensive language instruction instead of two years at a regular pace. In late September, the chairs of the three largest departments—French and Italian, Spanish and Portuguese, and Germanic studies—came up with a counterproposal, a requirement comprising one semester of intensive instruction and two semesters of regular teaching.
‘It’s Just Not Enough’
Professors who oppose the college’s original plan, including the chairs of the largest language departments, say the proposed requirement means that undergraduates would learn less and be less prepared for intermediate and advanced courses. Intensive language instruction is best suited for motivated students who choose such courses, says Mr. Hess, who warns that “the average student will be struggling to keep up with the pace of the highly intensive program.”
If the curricular change is approved, the intensive language courses will meet for six hours a week instead of the current five hours. Daniela Bini, chair of the department of French and Italian, says she doesn’t see how instructors would cram the eliminated semester or two of material into that time frame. “You are kidding yourself when you say that’s an intensive program,” she says.
Requiring at least two years of language instruction means a university is serious about making its students understand a language, says Rosemary Feal, executive director of the Modern Language Association.
Studying a language for only one year, she says, is “like taking one year of piano lessons or math. It’s just not enough to give you all the immersion that you would need to get some lasting and significant benefit.”
Department chairs are also concerned that the budget cuts will hurt the reputations of their graduate programs, since they would not be able to support as many graduate students or to train them as well. And on a personal level, they don’t want to see longtime colleagues let go. Ms. Bini says the most junior lecturer in her department has been there for eight years.
Administrators and professors who introduced the proposal for one year of intensive language instruction say they are forced to make difficult decisions because of budgetary problems. They argue, however, that language instruction would not be compromised simply because students spend less time in the classroom. Instead, the remaining classroom time would be put to better use, says Mr. Garza, who helped draft the one-year proposal.
In the intensive courses, students would spend more time in the classroom practicing comprehension and production skills rather than passively absorbing material about grammar, says Mr. Garza, who teaches in the department of Slavic and Eurasian studies. Understanding grammar is something that students can do as part of their homework, on their own time, he says, instead of on the expensive time of instructors.
Since many students have language instruction in high school, they shouldn’t have to take introductory language courses in college as well, says Richard R. Flores, senior associate dean for academic affairs: “In terms of state resources, if the state is going to pay for you to take the class in high school and then again in college, that doesn’t make sense.”
A reduced two-semester or three-semester language requirement would allow students to take other classes they actually want to take, he adds.
A campuswide committee of about 100 professors will review the proposals this month. If approved, as expected, the change would go into effect next year. Administrators say it would probably remain in place for at least three years, to give them a chance to evaluate the effects.