DE Special Projects Editor

Every week at noon, Sergio Picozzi goes to the same room in Neckers Hall to teach Physics 203B to a class of more than 25 students.

On this day, the native Italian teaching assistant strolls back and forth from one end of a chalkboard to the other, explaining a long formula he has just written down.

Am I losing you? he asks the class.

No one budges. No one raises a hand. Everyone keeps on looking attentively at him and the board. Then he proceeds.

I am writing everything in terms of what I know, he tells the class.

Picozzi said he has never had students complain that they could not understand him. But he is like nearly 22 percent of the teaching assistants at SIUC who speak English as a second language.

Though Picozzi would not comment on the issue, speaking English as a second language may mean he and other international teaching assistants at SIUC may be subject to a more complex language test before they are allowed to teach, following a sweeping change in University Core Curriculum.

For many years, the argument over language examinations for international students wishing to gain teaching assistantships has taken two sides.

It is state law for all Illinois public schools and universities to give some kind of language proficiency examination. This law was part of Illinois Senate Bill 1516, which was mandated in 1987. But it is up to the individual schools to choose how to conduct the tests.

Some teaching assistants who speak English as a second language believe the testing is unfair and has the ability to prevent them from gaining assistantships based on their language and sometimes on discrimination.

As recently as last July, the argument gained the attention of the public eye.

As part of the new Core Curriculum at a July 26 Graduate and Professional Student Council meeting, Ann Morey, director of Core Curriculum, presented a resolution suggesting the University review the current procedures and policies regarding the language examination.

Morey said she had received notice from the Faculty Senate that there are still many complaints from students who had trouble deciphering the speech of their teaching assistants. Morey suggested a review of the University’s language exam policies.

This is just part of an effort to make each student’s academic experience better, she said. This will benefit both undergraduate and graduate students.

In the July 26 meeting, GPSC backed the resolution. Mark Terry, GPSC vice-president for academic affairs, said the council supported the resolution because it felt there should be a fair and objective test.

If there are still problems with the current exam after a review, revisions will be necessary, Terry said.

There needs to be a mechanism to properly measure language proficiency or deficiency, he said. We backed it because we wanted to see an increase in training so there would be an increase in quality. But we also wanted to make sure that there is no chance of discrimination. We believe that an evaluation of the test would allow both to happen.

M. Harry Daniels, associate dean of the Graduate School, said no formal procedure for reviewing or revising the exam has been finalized, but University officials will continue to develop a plan.

After a review we will be able to administer whether changes are needed, he said. If so, then changes will be made.

Paul LeBlanc, graduate council representative for GPSC, was involved in the creation of the Graduate Orientation Task Force. The group is currently working on a guide for graduate students which will inform them on the rules and policies of the language exam. LeBlanc said this will give international students the opportunity to review their rights if they feel they have been treated unfairly.

LeBlanc said the biggest problem with the exam is most people who are affected by it do not understand all of the procedures.

The problem is that many international students are not aware that they have rights even if they fail the oral examination, he said. There is an appeal process, that if they are not aware of, they may not find out about it.

LeBlanc said if students fail their department test, but pass the graduate school test, they have the right to appeal the department’s decision.

According to officials at the University of Illinois Department of Curriculum and Instruction, international students at U of I applying for assistantships must go through an oral and written standardized test.

If they pass, they have to go through three days of orientation before they are integrated into domestic population training.

Monte Peerhbai, a teaching assistant in sociology and former GPSC member, said though the current exam works in most cases, it still has the potential to be abused.

Peerbhai said he fears that a review of the examination may lead to harsher policies, which may lead to an abuse of the exam.

In many cases, students can use the language barrier as a way to get rid of a teaching assistant who is from another country, he said. Discrimination can play a large factor in this situation.

Currently, all graduate students wishing to gain assistantships must take an oral test with the head of their department.

Daniels said the test is a conversation that lets the department get to know the person and determine whether the student is capable of speaking English proficiently.

Teaching assistants then have to go before a committee made up of representatives from the graduate school, the Center for English as a Second Language (CESL) and a faculty member from the teaching assistant’s department.

Peerbhai said it is a shame students have to go through this procedure. He said the committee is not necessary.

Why aren’t they willing to trust the departments (to conduct the language exams)? Why is their judgment wrong, he said. They (the SIUC administration) are trying to create a policy that does not comply with the idea of due process that has been developed in the Western Hemisphere in the last 2,000 years.

Daniels said the process of measuring English language proficiency at SIUC is very efficient and is in accordance with state law. However, he said he welcomes an evaluation of the test.

The policies are no more rigorous, nor any easier than any other schools in the state, he said. But we are currently following up on the suggested review, and we are working toward some kind of resolution.

But others, like Peerbhai, believe that no matter what happens, there will always be those who will not be satisfied.

It is old story, said Peerbhai. It is impossible for both sides to be happy.