New Courses

A Times editorial endorsed the Cal State trustees approval of a new list of courses for fall of 1988. Opponents of the new requirements are just as concerned about the preparation of students as The Times; however, we disagree with The Times that the Cal State plan will achieve this end:

1--The Times refers to the Cal State figures that show that 57% of the black applicants and 63.3% of the Latinos for fall, 1985, already met the mathematics requirements. These figures are questionable since the chancellor’s office has not allowed the public to critique the research. Data from individual CSU campuses contradict these findings.

2--The Times writes “that the state Department of Education must work with the high schools to ensure that the full complement of courses is available everywhere so that minority students will not suffer . . . “ Opponents find this statement frustrating since it addresses the question of quantity and not quality. Consider that only 9% of the Latino students attend schools where results on the California Assessment Program are in the top quartile statewide.

3--The Times endorses the Cal State trustees authorization that a “conditional admissions” policy be implemented. However, the adoption of the conditional status is contradictory. Logically, the CSU system then must provide new classes in order to meet the preconditions or just waive the preconditions. In the first instance, the number of years to complete the degree will be prolonged. If the conditions are waived, why pass the preconditions in the first place?

4--The Times accepts the assumption of the Cal State trustees that the reason that students do not complete their degree in the normal period of time is that they are not adequately prepared. The Cal State trustees and The Times ignore a whole set of other variables: first, many educators have found that the main reason that minority and poor white students are taking longer to obtain their degrees is that a growing number must work and take lighter loads.

Two, an increasing number of minority students are business and engineering majors. It is not uncommon for these students to take up to six years to complete these majors.

Three, general education requirements have increased, making it more difficult for students to complete their courses of study in the allotted time.

5--The Times states that “Recruiters must look beyond grade averages and test scores and pay more attention to whether students can write literate paragraphs and grasp what they read.” Again the assumption appears to be that minority students are not literate. I have taught in the CSU system for 17 years. Writing is the process of maintenance and development. However, I have found that the CSU system does very little in regard to maintaining or developing writing skills. I have surveyed senior-level students and I have found that 70-80% of their exams are objective tests. Many have never taken an essay examination. Therefore, I strongly believe that the CSU system contributes little to the development of literacy. The system cannot pass the entire responsibility to the English professors nor to the high schools. Perhaps there is something internally wrong with the system, which, after all, all supplies 70-80% of the state’s public school teachers.

In conclusion, only a fool would quarrel with the goal of better prepared students. The fact is, however, that many more minority students are being admitted than there were 20 years ago. The majority of these students would be been excluded if the 1988 requirements would have been in force. In this period we have had thousands of success stories. It is natural therefore to be concerned that the CSU is acting hastily. Only this year, increased requirements were implemented. At the time of their adoption, the trustees and the public were promised that there would be no further increases without (1) an impact study to determined whether the requirements in fact raised the quality of education, and (2) what impact the 1985 requirements had on the access of minorities to the CSU.

We are concerned about the historical amnesia of the CSU trustees and The Times. And, many of us are not only concerned but also fear that all of the gains we struggled for in the past will be erased, relegating minorities in California to an underclass.

RODOLFO ACUNA

Northridge