Our Concerns

Dear Professor Dornfeld:

I am writing to you on behalf of the Faculty of the English Language Program (ELP) regarding UCB Extension¹s decision to terminate that program, effective May 14. The ELP, as you may know, was founded by a small group of UC Berkeley Lecturers and graduate students. These pioneers, some of whom were former Peace Corps volunteers, were truly idealists - their goal was to create a program reflecting the best aspects of American culture: tolerance, intellectual curiosity, independent thought and expression. That spirit still imbues the program; thirty years later, some of the founders still teach in it.

As a result, a truly unique culture has flourished in the ELP­ international in spirit, supportive and egalitarian in practice. When faced with the loss of several teaching contracts in 1999, the faculty collectively agreed that each one would reduce his or her percentage of employment as much as s/he could, so that no one would lose the benefits we had struggled so long to attain. In an organization where high turnover is the norm, ELP's faculty has served for an AVERAGE of sixteen years.

Now, as we look toward retirement (average age: 55), we are told that we are not "Berkeley quality" - that we no longer fit the "mission" of Extension. And, as if that were not enough, we are told that programs like ours are "ubiquitous." Such a characterization betrays a deep ignorance of who we are and what we do, and flies in the face of reality: Intensive English Programs of ANY sort are not ubiquitous in Berkeley - there are only three!

Perhaps it would be easier to understand the decision to close the ELP if we were a financial burden to Extension, but we are not; ELP is, and has always been profitable - in fact, our Gross Profit Margin in fiscal 02-03 was $2.5 million! Perhaps if there had been a sincere effort on the part of senior administration to learn who we are, and what we're capable of, and only then the decision had been madeŠbut there was no such effort.

So, like our TESL/TEFL colleagues worldwide, we were shocked by the decision to close the ELP, and puzzled as well. We have many concerns regarding the rationale given for the closure, as well as the procedures that were followed to arrive at the decision, and are laying those concerns before your committee, in hopes that you will see the merit in them and act on our behalf. Briefly stated, those concerns are that:

1. The rationale given for closing the English Language Program - it no longer "fits Extension's Mission" and is not "Berkeley Quality/Berkeley Appropriate" - is false, and not supported by the evidence.
2. The process for evaluating programs set forth in Extension's Strategic Plan was not followed in any respect.
3. There is strong reason to suspect other unrevealed factors and/or individuals were behind the decision to close the program.

In order to "strengthen the campus connection," Extension's Strategic Plan has a primary objective of developing an "internal process and criteria for reviewing its programs according to standards of Berkeley quality and appropriateness" (Strategic Plan, 27). In addition to a "program-by-program review with input and involvement from campus departments" (ibid., 28), process was supposed to assess "external perspectives, including...student feedback and the input of leaders from comparable land grant institutions" (ibid., 27.) However:

• The ELP faculty was never informed who would be on the committee charged with evaluating the program. During the initial review process, no one from that committee solicited input from ELP faculty. We do not know if the evaluation committee was, in fact, the "Academic Strategy Task Group" (ibid., Acknowledgements) mentioned in the Strategic Plan, but if so:
• No member of that group has any first-hand knowledge of the ELP Intensive course. The only member of the group who had the slightest familiarity with ELP was Leslie Kanberg, a relatively new employee who had been a Continuing Education Specialist (CES) in the San Francisco ELP until it was closed in 2003, and has never worked in the Berkeley ELP.
• During the initial review process, no one from the review committee or the senior administration of Extension, including Dean Sherwood or ELP Director Janis Williamson, solicited input from any ELP faculty member regarding the curriculum.
• Ms. Williamson, although nominally director of the program, cannot be presumed to be intimately familiar with it. Since taking the helm in 2000, she has never formally reviewed the curriculum, observed a class or interviewed a faculty member. In fact, Ms. Williamson closed her office at ELP more than a year ago and has only visited the Hillegass Ave. campus a handful of times since then.
• Likewise, Dean Sherwood had visited the ELP campus only twice prior to announcing its closure (the first time while he was applying for the position of Dean.)
• No ELP students were interviewed. Almost unanimously, students have reacted with surprise and disbelief, and expressed the fear that the closure signals an increase in American insularity and anti-foreigner sentiment.
• To the best of our knowledge, no "external perspectives" were sought, or presented in support of the decision to close the ELP. Reaction from Intensive English Programs (IEPs) on other UC campuses has ranged from puzzlement to shock. Reaction from within the TESL/TEFL community has been much stronger. (As one example, please see the attached letter from Douglas Brown, Ph.D.)
• Dean Sherwood stated in the UC Berkeley News (January 29, 2004): "A key aim of Extension's Strategic Plan is strengthening the connection with campus." With this in mind, it seems more than a little curious that the Academic Senate committee (UEXT) most directly responsible for advising and overseeing matters pertaining to Extension, its programs, etc., was never consulted during the review process, nor with regard to the closure of the English Language Program.

Given senior management's lack of hands-on familiarity with the ELP and its faculty, a comparable lack of experience on the part of the evaluating committee, and the failure to solicit input from those most familiar with the program, it was not unpredictable that ELP would be found deficient. However, a quick glance at Appendix A will dispel that misconception - ELP is, and has been for many years, meeting the standards of Berkeley quality and appropriateness.

Even if we accept, for a moment, the premise that the ELP is deficient in certain respects with regard to the standards of "Berkeley quality and appropriateness," there exists within the Strategic Plan an option to "modify the program to mitigate the deficiencies" (ibid., 29). However, no one at the Hillegass campus was:

• Informed that the program had scored low on the initial screening
• Notified in what areas the program was deemed deficient
• Given the opportunity to address those deficiencies

Furthermore, the Strategic Plan states that "exceptions can be made for programs that represent a partnership with campus; for example, a UC Berkeley staff development program focused on basic skills." The CDOP program for staff, classes for visiting scholars, free enrollment for non-native speaking graduate students, and 30-year old lecture series are a few examples of ELP's partnership with campus. (For more examples, please refer to Appendix A, section 5)

Dean Sherwood announced the closing of the ELP on January 26. At that meeting, he was asked if the review would be made available for our inspection. He rejected this request, adding that the review "wasn't done in writing, anyway." In addition to the lack of any written review, circumstantial evidence seems to suggest that that the decision may have been made in haste:

• Verbal assurances were given by Director Williamson to various faculty members as late as mid-December, 2003 that the program would not be closed, even though there would quite likely be more layoffs in June.
• Ms. Williamson also made comments concerning plans: for summer, 2004; preparations for our accreditation review; and statements that the faculty would not be receiving merit increases with their new contracts (fiscal 04 - 05).
• Ms. Kanberg, although a member of the Academic Strategy Task Group, made comments in the Jan. 26th meeting evincing surprise that the closing would not spare her pet course (English for Business). The Dean reacted with anger to these obviously unscripted comments.

It seems almost unbelievable that a decision of such magnitude, impacting the lives of more than thirty people, as well as countless present and future students, could have been undertaken so casually. To add insult to injury, we were informed that we would be laid off on May 14, one month before our contracts were due to expire. There was no pressing economic rationale for this decision; Dean Sherwood readily admits it was "absolutely not a cost decision." What, then, was the REAL reason behind the decision to close ELP, and who made it? In the absence of reliable information, rumors abound. These include the following:

• Rumor 1:
  Although ELP is profitable, the program has a relatively high "fixed cost": its core group of long-term, full-time faculty receiving career benefits (the only such group within Extension). By sacrificing short-term profit, Management realizes a long-term cost benefit from this "downsizing."
• Rumor 2:
  Dean Sherwood has announced that Extension is keeping its International Diploma Programs (Ms. Leslie Kanberg, Director). International educators agree that no top-flight International Program can function without an English language component. In a year or two (or less), the instructors will be replaced with part-timers, hired at a considerably lower rate pay, and receiving no benefits. For corroboration, one need look no farther than CSU Hayward; their American Language Program recently suffered exactly this fate, at great cost to the quality of their program.
• Rumor 3:
  Rather than re-hiring teachers for in-house English Language courses, Extension management is planning to outsource English language instruction to a private language school on a contract basis, or simply by referral.
• Rumor 4:
  Management is retaliating against the ELP faculty. During 2003, layoffs were executed without respect to seniority, and instructors asserted their rights in more than one dozen grievances filed during that time. Just before the Holiday break, an Unfair Labor Practices suit was filed before the Public Employees Relations Board (PERB). Before that, as mentioned above, Director Williamson was offering verbal assurance that the ELP intensive course would not be closed; in January, the closing was announced.
• Rumor 5:
  Dean Sherwood did not actually make the decision to close the program. He was told to do so by someone at a higher level of authority. In a recent article in the Berkeley Daily Planet, Dean Sherwood was quoted as referring further questions to "the person I report to." Was it UCB Provost Paul Gray, or Vice-Provost Bill Webster who actually made the decision?
• Rumor 6:
  Last year, Extension management mandated 20% budget cuts for each department. Rather than attempting this goal, the decision was made to realize the total reduction by closing just one program - the ELP. The benefit of eliminating its large "fixed cost" (see Rumor 1, above) is shared with other departments.

The UC Office of Human Resources website states, in the introduction to the section concerning layoffs: "It is the policy of the University to minimize layoffs required by budget reductions and to consider staffing reductions only after other creative solutions have been considered." It is our contention that Dean Sherwood, Director Williamson, (and any unnamed others involved in making the decision to close the ELP) have:

• Ignored any solution other than to close the ELP and throw more than thirty people out of work.
• Failed in every way to tap the reserves of creativity, talent, and experience our faculty possesses.
• Justified their decision on grounds that are almost wholly without merit .
• Failed to follow the procedures for evaluating programs as set forth in the Strategic Plan.
• Squandered the trust and goodwill that greeted them when they assumed their responsibilities.

In the interest of the many people hurt by this decision, and toward the goal of an honest, transparent, and accountable process of decision-making, we urge you, the members of the Academic Senate most concerned with this issue to:

• Discover and promulgate the true reasons for the decision to close the English Language Program
• Reveal the identities of those persons responsible for the decision
• Support your colleagues, the faculty of the English Language Program, by lending your moral authority to our cause

We truly hope that you will find the information we have provided in this memorandum a compelling reason to reverse the decision to close the English Language Program until such time as a thorough review is conducted, and sufficient opportunity be given to remedy any deficiencies, in accordance with the process described in the Strategic Plan.

Sincerely,

The Faculty of the English Language Program