Jeff Goldthorpe's LFM anecdote

1. ESL-English Bridge, by Jeff Goldthorpe!
!
! When I was hired at CCSF English department in 1996, I accepted that ESL was a
natural part of the academic landscape. I didn’t know whether an old-timer was being bitter or
ironic when she told me of the prehistoric sundering of the English Department, and the growth
of the “Evil Empire,” the ESL department. But in 2002, as a tenure track English teacher, I knew
that the Cold War metaphor was not joke when an English-ESL subcommittee was formed and
dismissed within a few months due to an unpopular ESL course proposal. A territorial dispute
had broken out, and the Cold War continued. I knew better than to wade into strife on this issue.
Yet I and many others shared office space with ESL colleagues, who taught classes that were
prerequisites to classes I taught like English 93.!
!
! English 93, since 1998 had been identified as a problem course for several reasons, and
that it was an entry point for ESL students into native speaker classes, was the least of its
problems. I and the future chair of my department Erin Denney were both involved in an effort to
analyze and reform the basic writing sequence at CCSF. In the decade that followed, my
concerns about English-ESL cooperation went on a back burner, and I concentrated on the
integration of previously separate curricula in reading and writing via an existing “learning
communities” program, and related equity issues. ESL-English Bridge committees came and
went. !
!
! Before I knew it, I was an old-timer, skeptical about the latest course reform initiative that
sounded suspiciously similar to something else that had been tried and ended in a muddle.
Going through CCSF’s accreditation drama did not help. I was not “once bitten, twice shy,” but
more like twice bitten, four times shy. I still taught English 93, in its original 3 unit and
accelerated 6 unit versions. All along, most of the ESL “graduates” did quite well, but a sizable
minority of them would struggle to write an idiomatically and grammatically clear paper. They
were hard working and would revise endlessly. I would have extensive conferences with them,
and we’d often succumb to burn out near the end. From regular conversations with colleagues
in both departments, I knew my experience was common, but I was in no mood to propose
course reform. I tried to avoid committees and meetings. !
!
! My end run was to try to mark an English 93 section of mine as a learning community
link to ESL 85, a grammar and proofreading elective. There was support in both departments for
the initiative, but we could never get more than a couple of students at a time to sign up for
both. Nonetheless, the conversation was good, and when a class of mine was canceled in
spring of 2015 due to the colleges accreditation-related enrollment woes, I was inspired by my
lightened paper load to begin a new ESL-English Bridge. The conversations sparkled and
enlivened the participants. It clearly filled a need in our teaching lives even before we did
anything, or before we got paid anything. Coincidentally at the same time, ESL’s Lab, which
previously served only students in the department’s classes, opened its services to all nonnative
speaker students, including those in English classes. The “Berlin Wall” was breeched.!
!
! My old colleague and new department chair Erin Denney asked if I could pull my
committee members into Leading From the Middle team to learn how to do successful
institutional reform. I tried but could not convince other members to join (reticent like I had
been). But with the help of chairs of both departments, we pulled a smart, vital LFM team
together, while Bridge committee continued meeting independently. We are learning to do this
work patiently and persistently.!

2. !
!
!
Once upon a time, in City College of San Francisco, English was taught in the English
department, until the 1970s arrived and before you could say “language acquisition,” poof! there
was a new department, called English as a Second Language, the biggest department in the
college of 60,000+ students. But this history was a fairy tale to me in the 1990s, when ESL was
a discipline, and graduates like me found entry level employment teaching ESL at home and
abroad.!
!
When I was hired at CCSF in 1996, I accepted that ESL was a natural part of the academic
landscape. I didn’t know whether an old-timer was being bitter or ironic when she told me of the
great sundering of the English Department, and the growth of the “Evil Empire,” the ESL
department. But in 2002, as a tenure track English teacher, I knew that the Cold War metaphor
was not joke when an English-ESL subcommittee was formed and dismissed within a few
months due to an unpopular ESL course proposal. A territorial dispute had broken out, and the
Cold War continued. I knew better than to wade into strife on this issue. Yet I and many others
shared office space with ESL colleagues, who taught classes that were prerequisites to classes
I taught like English 93.!
!
English 93, since 1998 had been identified as a problem course for several reasons, and that it
was an entry point for ESL students into native speaker classes, was the least of its problems. I
and the future chair of my department Erin Denney were both involved in an effort to analyze
and reform the basic writing sequence at CCSF. In the decade that followed, my concerns about
English-ESL cooperation went on a back burner, and I concentrated on the integration of
previously separate curricula in reading and writing via an existing “learning communities”
program, and related equity issues. ESL-English Bridge committees came and went. !
!
Before I knew it, I was an old-timer, skeptical about the latest course reform initiative that
sounded suspiciously similar to something else that had been tried and ended in a muddle.
Going through CCSF’s accreditation drama did not help. I was not “once bitten, twice shy,” but
more like twice bitten, four times shy. I still taught English 93, in its original 3 unit and
accelerated 6 unit versions. All along, most of the ESL “graduates” did quite well, but a sizable
minority of them would struggle to write an idiomatically and grammatically clear paper. They
were hard working and would revise endlessly. I would have extensive conferences with them,
and we’d often succumb to burn out near the end. From regular conversations with colleagues
in both departments, I knew my experience was common, but I was in no mood to propose
course reform. I tried to avoid committees and meetings. !
!
My end run was to try to mark an English 93 section of mine as a learning community link to
ESL 85, a grammar and proofreading elective. There was support in both departments for the
initiative, but we could never get more than a couple of students at a time to sign up for both.
Nonetheless, the conversation was good, and when a class of mine was canceled in spring of
2015 due to the colleges accreditation-related enrollment woes, I was inspired by my lightened
paper load to begin a new ESL-English Bridge. The conversations sparkled and enlivened the
participants. It clearly filled a need in our teaching lives even before we did anything, or before
we got paid anything. Coincidentally at the same time, ESL’s Lab, which previously served only
students in the department’s classes, opened its services to all nonnative speaker students,

3. including those in English classes. The “Berlin Wall” between departments was breeched. The
Cold War era was over.!
!
My old colleague and new department chair Erin Denney asked if I could pull my committee
members into Leading From the Middle team to learn how to do successful institutional reform. I
tried but could not convince other members to join (reticent like I had been). But with the help of
chairs of both departments, we pulled a smart, vital LFM team together, while Bridge committee
continued meeting independently. We are learning to do this work patiently and persistently.