I want to thank Dr. Devries for including the article by Paul Kei Matsuda, “Composition Studies and ESL Writing: A Disciplinary Division of Labor” in the class readings.  The article presents a history of how teaching English as a second language became a specialized segment of English and Language studies at the university level. The inception of TESL rhetoric and the development of the profession have striking similarities to the inception of rhetoric itself as a profession. For instance, in both cases, a need existed in society that could not be filled by current practices.  Development of the professions was politically motivated.  Questions and debates about who the teachers should be and what should they know, how the curriculum should look and be taught, and which students should be involved continue to be discussed and reevaluated.  Both professional histories exemplify how rhetoric is fluid and must change and adapt to current information; otherwise, the messages are in danger of becoming stagnant, distorted and/or inaccurate.

Matsuda presents a historical record of how TESL came to be a profession.  He recounts how, in 1933, “significant change was brought to the status of the ESL teaching profession with the development of U.S. foreign policy”(702). President Roosevelt announced his Good Neighbor policy which encouraged the teaching of English to nonnative speakers.  In 1940 the English Language Institute (ELI) at Michigan University was founded using grants from both the Rockefeller Foundation and the U.S. Department of State. 

Prior to 1940, according to Matsuda, it was commonly accepted that anyone qualified to teach English to native speakers was also qualified to teach ESL. Charles C. Fries, founder of the ELI, was instrumental in dispelling this notion which in turn resulted in the development of TESL as a profession.

Matsuda reveals how the division of labor in the university for TESL is problematic and unsettled.  I find, in my job, many of the same issues exist.  ELD teachers, at my site, are English teachers who have taken a few extra classes for teaching ESL.  All of them teach both mainstream English and ELD.  Content area teachers see the responsibility of teaching EL’s English as belonging to the ELD teacher.  Often, mainstream teachers turn to the ELD teacher expecting some kind of magic formula for helping the EL’s succeed, yet they are resistant to adjusting their own teaching to accommodate the language needs of EL’s.  Even in the English department, where the TESL teachers abide, little collaborative time is committed to the needs of EL’s.  ELD teachers and students remain on the periphery of the “real” work of the school.

TESL rhetoric started with politics and continues to be a political “hot button” issue, worthy of scholarly research and ongoing rhetorical debate.