Jeffrey Michels and the Contra Costa College English Department's defense of the English Composition Load
The first time I heard of Jeffrey Michels was in the days
leading up to the 2004-05 United Faculty/CCCCD contract negotiations,
when the district's proposals were daylighted including among many other things,
revision of Article 7.
Jeffrey posted this fantastic statement
explaining the rationale for the "English composition load," which the district proposed
to do away with. I assumed, from the authority of his writing and the elegance
of his thinking, that Jeffrey must be well-established in the Contra Costa College English Department.
As it turned out, he was in his third year, not even tenured, yet willing to speak out. As chair of the DVC English
Department, I called attention to his striking letter and wrote a note of congratulations and thanks. Here's that letter:
From: "Michels, Jeffrey"
To: "00-Everyone@CCC"
Subject: RE: The "Composition Load"
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 22:08:04 -0700
MEMORANDUM (An Open Letter)
4/15/04
TO: Members of United Faculty of the Contra Costa Community
College District
FROM: The English Department of Contra Costa College
RE: District's proposal to eliminate the "English
composition load"
Dear Colleagues:
The latest issue of Table Talk notes that among the District's
proposals
for Article 7 is the complete elimination of the "English composition
load." As the current system (which loads composition classes at 25%
rather than the standard 20%) may seem to affect only a few faculty
members, this might appear to be a reasonable concession for the union
to make. But in fact, the repercussions of such a change would be
far-reaching; it would lower the quality of education for almost every
student in the district. Since some UF members may be unfamiliar with
the factors that make the "composition load" so important, we will
briefly enumerate them here. In the strongest possible terms, we want
to stress that English professors do not want to protect some privilege
or to teach less than other faculty. The real beneficiaries of the
"composition load" are not teachers but students who need their writing
instructors to regularly spend a substantial amount of time reading and
commenting on their work.
A typical composition course at CCC requires a minimum of 8000 words
every semester, which usually translates to an essay or revision due
every week. This means that most composition teachers receive 25-30
papers per class every week. And these papers require more than simple
evaluation, more than a few comments and a grade. The writing
instructor's task is to explain to each student how his or her paper
might be improved and to discuss in detail each essay's strengths and
weaknesses. For most English professors at CCC, this means spending a
minimum of a half hour on each essay (or 12-15 hours per week per class
grading papers). Since there is a direct connection between the amount
of time instructors spend on student writing and the progress students
make in composition classes, any systemic change that would lessen that
time threatens student success.
This is not to suggest that English instructors will vindictively
decide
to become bad teachers if required to teach an extra writing class
every
semester. But there are physical limits to the number of hours any
teacher can spend reading papers outside of class. With today's large
class sizes, most of us in CCC's English Department already push that
envelope. Eliminating the "composition load," since it would add
another 30 students for every full-time instructor, would have exactly
the same effect as increasing class sizes. It would decrease the
amount
of individual time faculty members can give each student. The
District's proposal, in short, would raise student-teacher ratios
exactly where it would do the most harm.
This debate is going on all over the country. Not all colleges or
districts make allowances for what our contract calls "an extraordinary
amount of time outside of class [devoted] to criticizing and evaluating
written assignments and examinations" (7.2.2). Many districts, like
ours, have raised class sizes in composition classes (past what English
departments consider wise) to be consistent with other offerings. At
the same time, faculty and administrators, along with employers,
parents
and students, complain that students are not getting adequate language
instruction.
The National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) recommends that
composition courses should not enroll more than 15 students per
section.
The best writing programs, including UC Berkeley's, follow these
guidelines so that instructors can provide adequate feedback to
students. We already teach double the recommended number of students in
our sections. And our students are typically less prepared and so
require more individual attention than at top programs like UCB.
Changing the load factor will make this problem even worse.
Clearly, our district and our union are facing some tough choices, and
we understand that we may need to make sacrifices to weather this
current crisis. But the need to save money should not undermine our
efforts to adequately train and prepare students. Writing instruction
is a cornerstone of academic and professional success. It is worth
preserving the current 25% "composition load" so that faculty can
devote
adequate hours to meaningful writing evaluation that will enable our
students to make the kind of writing progress that they require.
We are mindful that the "composition load" sometimes seems unfair to
hard-working professors in other disciplines. Everyone spends extra
time outside of class grading papers. Many instructors in the social
sciences comment carefully, making suggestions for revision in addition
to simply grading or evaluating. But what sets composition classes
apart are the number of papers and pages assigned and the consistent
(weekly) need for time-consuming, careful grading. English
instructors,
ESL instructors and those who teach Academic Skills (all three areas
offer some composition classes) certainly see the "composition load" as
a way of fairly compensating them for the added work they do. But that
should not be the focus of this discussion. Undoubtedly, the
"composition load" helps our district attract and retain quality
faculty, but not because instructors at CCC do less work than at
schools
where there is no such provision for writing classes. The key for
faculty is that the "composition load" allows us to do a better job for
our students, and that is our main goal.
Not every English class is a composition class. Not every English
class
should be. It isn't that English classes or English teachers deserve
special treatment. But writing instruction, if it is done well, if it
is to be successful, requires substantially more time outside of class
than other subjects. There is no shortcut that would make this time
unnecessary, and that is why the 25% "composition load" should be
preserved.
Sincerely,
CCC's English Department
posted by James @ 4:25 PM
1 comments
