In with the New, Out with the Old

Fall 2005 will be the start of our new MATESL curriculum. Lest the title suggest too dramatic a change going forward, let me assure the reader that the basics of the new curriculum are the same as they have been since Fall 1988, the start of our current curriculum. The newness is in how we address some difficult and long-standing issues. What do you do when you want to provide a quality graduate education without an undergraduate major to build on? What do you do for those international students entering the program who do not have an English language proficiency that is high enough for them to be good English models for their own students? In the current curriculum, now 17 years old, the faculty " wanted it all "-to provide the background and the advanced courses, and give international students every opportunity to improve their English language skills-without compromising standards. In answer to the first question, we did two things to pack the curriculum. First, we instituted " curriculum prerequisites, " three areas which represented foundational knowledge that we hoped new students would bring with them when they started. If they did not have the knowledge, they could take the course work on campus to make up any deficit, but could not count it toward their degree. Second, we added 8 extra hours to the required 32-hours common for MA degrees in the Graduate College. In answer to the second question, we instituted stringent placement requirements which put some international students into as many as four extra ESL classes in an effort to help them gain the higher proficiency level we expected of them. The result? Our graduates left the program being among the best prepared in the world to face the reality of TESL/TEFL professionals. But three-quarters of them could not do it in two years. The extra curriculum prerequisites and ESL requirements extended their stay sometimes to three years. The longer program created a more costly education, particularly for our international students. It put a huge burden on those who were supported by outside agencies for only two years. It prevented our setting up workable exchange programs with foreign institutions who expected graduation in two years. On top of this, we created a credibility crisis: We advertised a two-year program, but we could only rarely deliver it. The problem? The faculty " wanted it all " but …