A message circulated over the Internet last year successfully conveys the difficulties Harvard students encounter when trying to understandteaching fellows who lack English proficiency. Entitled "Surviving Carcurus: A guide to understanding Calculus TFs," it provides us with translations for TFs' pronunciations of mathematical terms.

Some examples from the message: "absolute" is pronounced "EYEB-zo-YOOT"; "alpha" becomes "ARR-fah"; and "angle" turns into "ANG-girl." "Please note," words used to draw students' attention to important details, are reduced to "YOO-NEED-SEE."

While the guide may engage in a small amount of hyperbole, it communicates an important (and hopefully obvious) point: teaching fellows who cannot speak English can pose significant problems for their students.

Unfortunately, TFs needing assistance in English are only part of a larger problem: the lack of adequate training for teaching fellows. Even when TFs can speak English, many Harvard students report serious problems with the quality of teaching in their sections.

Teaching fellows assume even greater importance at Harvard than at other institutions, simply because of the way that teaching and learning are structured at a large research university.

Professors with 500 students in their courses cannot give individual undergraduates the attention they deserve. Ideally, professors would take more responsibility for actual teaching, but in reality, the burden falls on teaching fellows, who come to play crucial roles. The leading of discussions, the grading of papers and exams, and the monitoring of lab sessions are left largely in the hands of TFs. Whether a student has a good or bad experience in a course depends in large part on the quality of his or her TF's instruction.

At Harvard today, it is clear that much is to be desired in the quality of instruction offered by TFs. Students regularly complain of teaching fellows who do not have an adequate grasp of the material, who have not prepared for sections or labs they lead, or who cannot express ideas clearly to their students.

Obviously there is a problem, and both students and administrators recognize the need for significant change. As Dean for Undergraduate Education Lawrence Buell said recently, "I would definitely support an FAS-wide initiative to make sure that we have strong TF training across the board."

We strongly support two recent efforts made to remedy this situation. First, we urge the Faculty Council to pass a proposal by Dean Buell requiring that TFs be screened for English language competency before they enter the classroom.

Faculty members had several objections to the proposal, none of which are valid. As Cabot Professor of the Natural Sciences John E. Dowling said, "Language skills cannot be used to judge someone's teaching capability." His sentiments were echoed by Baird Professor of Science Gary J. Feldman, who observed that TFs can compensate for a "lesser grasp of English" through other attributes.

What these arguments ignore is the simple fact that no TF--regardless of dedication or caring--can be an effective teacher if he or she does not speak the language of instruction. For most courses, this is English. The objections of Dowling and Feldman would make sense only if the proficiency test requires TFs to compose extemporaneously and declaim Petrarchan sonnets.

The faculty members who questioned the proposal said they support efforts to guarantee TFs' teaching effectiveness, but called for flexibility in application of standards. But "flexibility" in such standards could all too easily turn into no standards at all.

Second, we support the institution of the reform proposals made by the Undergraduate Council. The Council has called for each department to conduct mandatory TF evaluation and training, citing clear explication of material, genuine interest in students and accessibility as criteria for such evaluation.

This proposal makes a lot of sense. Requiring training to take place within each department, rather than conducting it entirely through the Bok Center for Teaching and Learning, allows for flexibility in teaching that takes into account the differences in teaching across disciplines.

The Bok Center, since it has only a 12-person permanent staff, might be overwhelmed if faced with the task of training the 1,000 Harvard TFs. But it is still a valuable resource offering additional help to TFs who need it, and has proved very helpful for many TFs in the past. Those TFs who have trouble teaching their students--even after departmental training--should be required to attend special sessions at the center.

Bureaucratic machinery at Harvard moves at a notoriously slow pace. We sincerely hope that proposals for reform in the training of teaching fellows will be accepted and implemented as quickly as possible. The benefits of good teaching belong not just to the next set of Harvard undergraduates, but to the undergraduates of today. At nearly $25,000 a year, we deserve no less.