CWU LIVING HISTORY PROJECT

DALE OTTO

INTERVIEWER: HELEN SMITH

TECHNICIAN: HAM HOWARD

Smith: Today is May 22, 1998. We are interviewing Professor Dale Otto who has been with us in Early Childhood Education, (Is that correct?), and teaching English as a second language. All right, would you please start out. Excuse me, the interviewer is Helen Smith; the technician is Ham Howard. We need, Dale, for you to start off with just a thumbnail sketch of your background, your personal history before you came to Central, if you will?

Otto: OK. I grew up in Idaho and had an interest in getting out of Idaho. I did a Bachelor’s Degree in English and chemistry at Idaho State University, and some teacher preparation, and saw a notice on a bulletin board that said, “Teach in East Africa.” And so my first job was with an organization called Teachers for East Africa. we had six months of training, and then I taught for two years in Nairobi, Kenya in a boys’ secondary school. I taught English and chemistry. That got me interested in second language contexts and people who lived their lives in other places, and so I came back to UCLA and did a Master’s Degree in English Literature and a diploma in teaching English as a second language, thinking that literature would be a good vehicle for second language learning. It’s not. I enjoyed the degree, but it wasn’t a useful way to combine literature with teaching. And I also met my wife to be, Elizabeth. My second job after two years at UCLA was in Ethiopia. We were both very interested in that part of the world, and I taught English at Haile Selassie University from 1966 to ‘68. Elizabeth was a commercial artist and also taught art to boys in a government-run reform school. And that got me interested in, I also worked for the Peace Corps in teacher training, in country in Ethiopia. That all got me interested in children. Where does language start? And so back to UCLA. I did a Ph.D. in Applied Linguistics and Curriculum. While I was there I had a job as a curriculum developer for an organization that was developing bi-lingual curriculum for Navaho children, which was very valuable experience. And I completed that work in 1971, June. That’s when we came to Ellensburg.

Smith: So you came to Central, and what was your rank when you came, and what was your academic assignment?

Otto: I was hired as an Associate Professor. I was given a joint assignment, halftime at the Center for the Study of Migrant and Indian Education, which the University ran in Toppenish. I think that was funded primarily by the Superintendent of Public Instruction and a Federal Entitlement Program. I was hired as, I was appointed as a curriculum developer for the Indian side of the Center, the Yakima side. And the other half was teaching on campus in Early Childhood Ed. The Early Childhood Program at that time was this brand new Washington Center for Early childhood Ed. That was its first year. And so for the first year I spent half of my time in Toppenish, and half here on campus. I was a commuter, or a traveler, anyway.

Smith: And so how long did the Early Childhood Education assignment go on?

Otto: That one hasn’t stopped.

Smith: That continues to this day.

Otto: Yeah, I’ve been in Early Childhood Ed. at least halftime, all of the time I’ve worked at Central, and from 1972 to 1980 I was full time Early Childhood Ed.

Smith: And what about teaching English as a second language? When did that start?

Otto: The Migrant and Indian Program in Toppenish was closed at the end of my first year of teaching. The first director of the Early Childhood Program was fired at the end of my first year, so I was given the choice of either coming to the campus full time in early childhood, or finding another place to work. And I was really interested in what else could go wrong, because both programs, one ceased to exist, the other was in great turmoil. And I spent the next, what, eight years, nine years, eight years, full time in the Early Childhood Program. The Washington Center for E.C.E. was closed in 1980 and there were a lot of financial cutbacks, and the powers that be thought that a children’s school was not necessary. And when the children’s school was closed, Hebeler School, the Early Childhood Program was taken into the Department of Ed. I became halftime in Education from that time on, and beginning in 1980 1 stated working in various kinds of teaching English as a second language, bi-lingual education, and the intensive ESL Program that the University has. I developed that starting in 1980.

Smith: That began in 1980.

Otto: Right.

Smith: Speaking of today, then you are about to retire. This is ‘98 and you’re going to retire this year?

Otto: Right. In August.

Smith: Are you going to go on phased retirement?

Otto: No. I think that’s a mistake.

Smith: You are going to close the door.

Otto: Right.

Smith: What are your plans for after that?

Otto: We’re moving to Salem, Oregon at the end of August for a couple of reasons: One is that my wife’s parents are there and they’re aged, but intact, and so we’ll be able to help them stay in their own home for a number of years. I’m also very interested in both Willamette University, I’ll probably work there somewhat, some portion of time. And Linfield College, I was at Africa University last year on professional leave, and got to know the President of Linfield very well because she’s on their Board of directors. They are doing some really interesting work in the areas that I’m interested in. I’ve been working at Boeing as a consultant, too, for the last two years. I’ll continue some of that. I’ll do other things that I like.

Smith: Tell us a little bit about that involvement with Boeing. What does it involve?

Otto: Yeah, about three, four years ago I met a fellow who works at Boeing in their employee training and development area, and I was at a conference for Early Childhood Ed., giving a paper. And he was at a conference right next door, a Boeing event. And we got to talking about experiential learning, and that’s the core of early childhood, so it just got interesting to both of us, and he invited me to come to Boeing and talk a couple of times. And that led to a winter quarter of 1996 contract to work for Boeing. That was in their employee training and development. My role, my contribution, I guess, was in helping them develop simulation based experiential training for their team leaders. They’re doing integrated product team organizational work throughout the company now. it was a lateral groupings of people who are brought together for specific tasks. So it’s a new way to do things for Boeing. My, the work that I did had to do with how to do that sort of training, and they know what they want to do, so that was my role. I continued doing that after that quarter just on an occasional basis, and then again this quarter, sorry, winter quarter of ‘97, ‘98.

Smith: You must have found it fulfilling...

Otto: Oh, it’s very interesting.

Smith: . . .Going back and doing that.

Otto: Yeah, it’s really fun to see the applications that are potential to any institution or organization. Central’s no exception. Successful businesses know how to do management and administration, if they don’t, they don’t thrive. And I was really gratified and interested to learn how Boeing does its administrative work, and management, in this lateral team based organizational structure that they’re committed to, and then think about possible uses of that. Those processes at a place like Central.

Smith: That’s exciting.

Otto: Yeah, it’s really fun. It still is.

Smith: You mentioned financial problems which, of course, everyone has to deal with, and perhaps more in your situation than others, what other problems would you talk about as being significant during your tenure at Central?

Otto: I think things have been clarified in the last couple of years for me. And the core of what I’m not satisfied with at Central, in terms of its operation is the, what I see as the Jack of knowledge about how to do administration on the part of most people who are administrators. I directed the Early childhood Program for eight years and then directed the English as a Second Language Programs for another seven years altogether. I didn’t have any training to do that and there was no invitation or avenue for me to get that sort of training. I think in Higher Ed. the assumption is if you have a Doctorate, you know enough to do anything, and you’re also immune from turf and paternalistic kinds of behaviors. It’s not true. I think, by and large, most administrators just do not have the kinds of skills that are necessary to work effectively with people, and to know how to handle information, to know how to conduct efficient and really useful meetings, to do planning and prioritizing and selecting, and what planning really is all about. What the elements of accountability and responsibility and authority really are like when they are linked together, what the role of resources is, as a consequence of commitment to plans. Those are basic things in, and again most organizations that are successful that are not Higher Ed. I used to get angry at administrators, and I don’t think that’s truly where the problem is. There are issues of personality; some people just don’t take care of their responsibilities very well, but I think the primary problem, from the time I started here until right now, has been centered in administration. And based in a lack of knowledge and skills to do administration well, and a lack of resources and encouragement to get that skill and understanding.

Smith: Do you have ideas on how this might be accomplished?

Otto: Oh, sure. The information is readily available. It’s not in journals and materials that are prepared for higher educators because we don’t read that kind of stuff. But, well, Boeing is a good example. I think most large businesses are both committed to and glad to give this kind of training. Boeing does it for no charge, They’ll do workshops for various sizes of groups of people, and various purposes to share this kind of information. It’s getting people to recognize that there is benefit from knowing how to do things that one has responsibility for. And then getting commitment for getting information and then using it, following through.

Smith: Well, why...

Otto: It is a paradigm shift from what we do normally here.

Smith: Why do you suppose that higher education seems reluctant to take advantage of the business community?

Otto: It’s not just the business community, it’s organizational work in general that I

think, I think it’s the dark side of higher education and possessing Doctorate Degrees.

Many people assume, sometimes rightly, but usually not, that the possession of a

Doctorate qualifies one to do and know a lot. In fact, it gives one specialty, but it doesn’t teach anything about other areas of work, unless one has done a training experience in it. So it’s this kind of protected assumption that we as faculty, and most faculty are people who become administrators, without the benefit of training. We as administrators don’t need that, We know how to do that. We’ve been in departments, in units, in schools and colleges all of our work. It’s not really arrogance; it’s just an assumption of infallibility, maybe. Too much capacity to do, without being able to do. I suppose that’s the primary factor at work. That’s the one I see. It leads to other consequences. If I can just say that. And one is the kind of paternalistic, vertical arrangement of people, and the assumption that that’s how people should be arranged. And so we’re in Departments, and those Departments have a layer above them called a College or a School, and that layer has a layer above it called Provost, and then that layer has., .it’s all this vertical organization. Lateral linkages are usually competitive and based on turf protection, rather than cooperative and based on program. And that tradition of organization has been in American Higher Ed. forever. And so you have the weight of tradition as a vertically organized, “I know you do. I know you do. I know you do. But I say,” a kind of operating instruction.

Smith: Having said that, are there any administrators that you feel were significantly important, and did their jobs extremely well?

Otto: No. I think there have been administrators who because of their personalities have been effective and have genuinely cared. I can name some people who I’ve valued working with. I have not seen though, anyone at Central, or other Universities I’m familiar with, who have gained the kind of skill to do organizational leadership.

Smith: Do you want to name some of those that you felt valued?

Otto: Yeah. Jimmy Applegate was good. Aspects of Ed Harrington, I valued a lot. Jim Brooks, I found him to always be very supportive, and anxious to enable anyone who was willing to do something. Bonnie Brooks, who was the Chair in Education for a short period of time, I think, had really strong potential. Don Cummings, I think, did well as an administrator in the English Department. I worked closely with him because I was assigned part-time to the English Department for four years, and another person, Schafer, like Brooks, who would help and enable as best he could.

Smith: Because of this problem, then, what specific problem came up between teaching faculty and administrators?

Otto: I don’t know if it’s any specific problem, I kind of see it as an on-going, same problem, but with different expressions. There’s the issue of turf protection which affects us all. There is the issue of vertical control which is an assumption of how things need to operate, and it leads to, almost always, a mildly to really severe, a mild to severe paternalistic relationship. And so we’re walled-off from each other by vertical boundaries, and we are in various positions of inclusion or exclusion based on vertical control.

Smith: And that causes resentment.

Otto: Oh, yeah. And dysfunction. And many, many missed opportunities to do programs based on purpose rather than on Department. and to use resources in ways that make the most use of those resources. We squander a lot of time and money.

Smith: Which is a shame. What about problems that arose between the teaching faculty and the Board of Trustees? Were you aware of any of those?

Otto: The ones at present are pretty serious, I think. Those center around money matter and to a lesser degree, shared revenues. Earlier, I think most of those sorts of problems arose with financial cut-backs, or threats of financial cut-backs at the University. Those immediately polarized people because we don’t have the mechanisms or the avenues to clarify and then move with those problems. “I’ll tell you what I want you to do,” is a consequence of this problem. (?) and then people get mad at any one who is above them, including the Trustees.

Smith: Right. Then, that leads me to students, then since teaching faculty are above students. Did you experience any severe problems between faculty and students?

Otto: Personally, or witness?

Smith: Either. Both.

Otto: Yeah. Now you know students have been the reason I’ve stayed here. I’ve really gained immense pleasure from the teaching I’ve done, and the work related to teaching, curriculum development, primarily, and some program development. I don’t think we recognize students as customers, although just this year that’s becoming the “buzz” word in administration, and I’m pleased about that because the more the student is seen as the person buying a service, the more the providers of that service will need to listen and see more what the picture from that side is, and what the needs of students are. So I think that may change for the better. I do...another example, I suppose, of difficulties with the students’ experience is exemplified by the separation of the Education Department into two different Departments now, one for programs, and the other for all of the certification course work. And students are forever running back and forth to get signatures, to find information, to learn things they should have known, and couldn’t find out until it was after the fact. Advisement has been a really great issue of hardship for most students in the Education Program now because of these two separate walled-off Departments. And, you know, it’s very easy to over look those problems until enough students start saying, “I’m not being well served, and you need to pay attention, or I’ll get a lawyer, or I’ll write a letter to a State Legislator.”

Smith: And do you think they are starting to do that more?

Otto: I think so, yeah. There’s a lot of...! ask students periodically, “How’s it going, and what hurdles are you encountering?” And those are the main things. I get more examples, and more strength of feeling about those all the time, just in regard to that two Department situation, where there used to be one.

Smith: During your years here, I’m sure that you have thoughts about the salary schedule. Give us your opinions on that. Did you think it was fair? What did you think it was?

Otto: Money doesn’t really interest me very much, and so I’ve never chafed about it. We’ve had enough to live on comfortably, and that’s been OK for me personally. I do think that when one looks at comparative salary data, either for other occupations within the State, or across institutions of higher education to see where we stand, we’re low. And I know that’s a factor in our capacity to find and retain really solid faculty. And probably really good administrators, too. They’ll take a job where there is more money, other things being sort of equal. You can’t blame anyone for doing that now. Salaries are low here, and they’ve been low for a long time. And the avenues for advancement on the salary scale have been really erratic and sometimes, insignificant. A lot of squabbling for two or three hundred dollars a year.

Smith: What about Faculty Code? Your opinion of it, or were you ever involved in revising it?

Otto: Oh, yeah. I’ve worked from time to time with people working on the Code. Kind of looking at it now, and again in relation to agreements that are more typical in organizations other than higher education, Faculty Code doesn’t have the basis of required following that it ought to, and I think that’s one of the reasons the union movement is gaining so much strength. The code can be changed willy-nilly, and people try to change it periodically from on-high by writing memo, or some directive. And the Code does not have the force of a contract, or anything approaching it. It’s sort of like, “Here’s what we hope all of us will do,” document. And when it’s convenient to use the letter of the Code, then those in administration will do that. When it’s not convenient, there is a tendency to change it or ignore it. I think it’s too weak of a document to define relationships between faculty and those who are responsible for managing the institution.

Smith: Do you think then that the union idea, which indeed, is growing will eventually become a solid part of the institution?

Otto: Probably.

Smith: How do you feel about that?

Otto: Not very good. You know, I’m supportive of the union in the narrow issue of salaries, but once a relationship is established that creates two camps, those who are responsible for operating the University, and those who are responsible for doing the work, all issues then become polarized and struggle, and that’s so far from notions of collegiality and working with colleagues and having functional working relationships, rather than combative relationships. You know it’s not a movement that I think will help, other than raise the issue of salaries to a pretty high level of importance.

Smith: Yes, and then that becomes paramount

Otto: Exactly.

Smith:... and the idea of a University gets subjugated.

Otto: The program questions wither away. If they can’t be put into the revised contract, the union and management contract, then they’re not an issue.

Smith: What about Faculty Senate? What is your attitude toward it, and were you ever a Senator?

Otto: I never was a Senator. I’ve sat in on meetings from time to time. I think it probably has the same basic flaw as the Code does. The true responsibilities and authority of that group are fluid. And because it’s called a Senate, there is too much emphasis on deliberation and talk, and not enough emphasis on clarity and action. I like the idea of a representative body, and since we’re organized by Departments I like the idea of representation by unit. The Departmental organization though, since it’s vertical, tends to create contradictory, contra.. ,you know, just contra relationships, I suppose, among people, rather than nurture cooperative relationships.

Smith: Many faculty have chafed under the idea of publish or perish and academic freedom. Do you feel in your years at Central that you have had, in first place, academic freedom?

Otto: Yes. I’ve never felt reluctant to speak or write what I felt I needed to.

Smith: And did you feel that if you didn’t publish something, you would not be rewarded?

Otto: Yes and no. It’s kind of like the parent who says, “I won’t love you any more, unless you make your bed.” It’s a powerful threat, and if the kid makes his or her bed, then it’s going to be made for reasons of not wanting to lose affection, or support. The emphasis on publishing has largely been hot air here, and the consequences of not publishing have not been a withdrawal of support, necessarily. I think that most people have been able to move when there was opportunity to move, either through promotion or merit, without having what I consider a very strong publishing record. I don’t have one. Partly because of the lack of necessity to publish, and largely because of the demands on my time. We do not furnish work time, week time, to truly dig into material other than staying on top of twelve credits of instruction per quarter.

Smith: That brings us to your attitude about the importance of classroom teaching as opposed to research, let’s say.

Otto: Yeah. I wouldn’t put them in opposition. I’d put them as complementary, and for me and I think for most faculty here, the side that is languishing is the research side. I do think that most faculty who choose an institution like Central and who remain, are quite interested in and committed to teaching, and that’s their priority. It’s certainly been mine. That’s also the obvious emphasis of this University, regardless of exhortations to publish, or do community service, whatever that means. Teaching is really what we are defined by. And a load for a faculty member is twelve credits a quarter. It’s not one article a quarter, or go to two community meetings a quarter. It’s how much you teach; how your teaching evaluations are viewed.

Smith: Since you are student oriented, how do you feel that the pre-college preparation of your students has been, and have you noticed a difference over the time that you have been here? Do they come in better prepared? Worse prepared?

Otto: Nope. My own view on this is not in keeping with most people I talk with. I hear that students are becoming more vocationally driven, and less education motivated, and that the general level of the student who enters and works, studies at Central is, academically is weaker than in past years. I think that kind of the benefit of rose colored, hindsight glasses. I really don’t see changes in students of those kinds. I do think students are more anxious about getting a job. And I find a range of motivation and capacity in every class I teach, and there are always a few people who just don’t have any reason to be there. They’re filling seats that ought to be filled by somebody else. There’re some others who you’d just love to put them in a track that’s going to graduate school in an area they’re really interested in. So it’s a very broad spectrum, and I think that for me has been quite stable.

Smith: Good. The conventional wisdom, then, that they’re getting worse, they’re getting better, is simply, in your eyes, hasn’t happened.

Otto: They’re more vocationally anxious, and that’s about it.

Smith: You’ve done a lot. You’ve made many contributions since you’ve been here. Please tell us what you think are the specific, most important contributions that you have made.

Otto: Directing the Early Childhood Program, the Washington Center for Early Childhood Ed. in a context of a lot of argument about whether it should ever have been created in the first place, and the tug-of-wars that went on during its years of operation, ‘71 to’80. That was an accomplishment that I value. I lost, between financial cut-backs and the struggles with the administration, the program was closed. I developed and directed both the University English as a Second Language Program and the Asian University-America Program. Those thrive, and are money makers. And I think provide a good service to Central in terms of attracting, and almost guaranteeing, International students on campus. I think, my work with graduate students has always pleased me, and undergraduates. I’ve had, I counted up the other day, and over the past about fifteen years, I’ve had, I’ve Chaired, what was it twenty-four individualized Master’s Degree Committees for students and about fifteen or sixteen undergraduate Bachelor’s Degree individualized majors. Those are things that we create from scratch to match a students goals. Mine have primarily been in the area of second language teaching and learning, and over half of them have been with foreign students who are here to do advanced work, or a Bachelor’s Degree. Those have been fun, and I value the University being supportive of those kinds of programs, and my having the chance to work with the students who are interested doing something other than what’s in the catalogue. Almost always, they’re motivated and strong students. That’s really been fun. Curriculum Development is, I suppose, the other area of developmental work. The Early Childhood major and minor are largely... I was very active in putting those together. Teaching English as a Second Language minor in Education. The English Language Learning Master’s Degree Program in English for TOEFL and UESL. I put that together. So those sorts of curriculum development efforts that are still in existence, and basically not changed, are fun to see.

Smith: That should be very gratifying to you because they’re, obviously a very visual and important part of the campus, now.

Otto: Yeah, so I was kind of lucky, and it was fun to be able to do that. If the Early Childhood Program had thrived and continued, I wouldn’t have done that, any of it.

Smith: So one never knows. Well, you have been honored for many of these things. Tell us about awards and honors that you received.

Otto: Oh, I don’t know, A few grants here and there.

Smith: That’s important.

Otto: A few offices in State and National organizations that I value.

Smith: Would you care to name them?

Otto: Nah. They’re in Early Childhood Ed. and Second Language Teaching. The, I think, over the last five years, six years, it’s kind of an honor, but it’s just really an opportunity, I’ve been able to work with a group dealing with anti-bias, culturally relevant teaching. The Kellogg Foundation funded a project six years ago, and there were four groups of people in different parts of the country arranged for diversity, and interest in early childhood, third grade on down, work And what we’ve done, and are still doing, is first of all, a lot of clarification of our own sense and doing of prejudicial actions and assumptions about people in groups. It was two years of hard work to get it... at who I am, and how do I relate to people who are not part of my main group, in the company of mostly women, and a wide variety of all ethnic groups, the major ones in this country, the range of sexual preference, other life-style issues, and culture and language. So we were Cheek by jowl, a group of twenty people doing that clarifying work for a couple of years. And then after that, we’ve been doing in-service training for teachers in anti-biased teaching which is basically, helping teachers practice ways of not letting children hurt each other through words or action, no matter what, not letting adults do the same. And then cultural relevancy, looking at multi-cultural education as not quite as effective as culturally relevant education which centers on the people who are in the classroom, the school, and the community, rather than on people who are thousands of miles away.

Smith: Well, so, now this is still going on? You were the group that started this.

Otto: I was in one of the initial groups and there were still only four.

Smith: And then, so how is this disseminated? You train, you actually train teachers?

Otto: We do. And there’s some writing that we do. We spend a lot of time at conferences. It’s been fun.

Smith: Extremely exciting.

Otto: It is, yeah. And it has a strong niche, potentially, here or at other Universities, as well because the same notions that are true with young children, almost always have an expression with any age of person. College is no different.

Smith: With everything that you’ve done, did you have time to serve on any committees that didn’t relate directly to your work throughout the campus?

Otto: Just a few. I’ve Chaired, or been on several search committees that haven’t been in my area. I was on the Student Grievance Committee a couple of different times. Anyway, that’s about it. The other committee work I’ve done has been directly, or very closely related to my work. International Programs Advisory Committee is one I’ve been on a longtime, but that’s part of my work, too.

Smith: Tell us a little bit about the Student Grievance Committee. Do you think it’s an important one? Does it work?

Otto: It did when I was on it. And I think it is important. It kind of served, from my experience with that committee, the role of ombudsman, the ombudsperson, to make sure there was an avenue to get at both sides of a controversial picture, and not be vested in either side. And I think that committee worked hard at staying neutral, and then in helping resolve, really heart-felt disagreements between, usually a student and a faculty member, or a student and an administrator. I found that to be an important, interesting, and useful committee.

Smith: Good, because a lot of people think there are too many committees that don’t accomplish a thing. just sit and spin their wheels.

Otto: Right.

Smith: So it’s good to know there are some that are really effective after all. Sometimes, especially in recent years, some faculty have felt that there are certain programs on campus that shouldn’t be on the University campus. Have you ever felt that way about anything on our campus?

Otto: Not really. I think most of the time those sorts of views are expressions of turf issues, rather than programmatic issues. I’ve always been suspicious of the relationship between a military training unit on a campus, and campus. And so I have real reservations about our Air Force and Army ROTC Programs. I meet the students who are in those programs, though, and I think, I’m really happy that they’re getting a four year broad education, and then have a commitment to serve in the military, because I think they’re picture of the world and of people, is bigger. So, for me, it’s a contradictory feeling. I wouldn’t want to lead, or be a party of an effort to, not have those programs, but I think it’s also useful to just kind of ask questions, on going.

Smith: Were you here in the years when there was really some demonstrations against the military?

Otto: Yeah. My first few years here, the campus was quite hot. The Ethnic Studies

Program was new and making lots of waves, and the tail end of the protests against the

Viet Nam War were also perking along on campus.

Smith: And those all seemed to dissolve.

Otto: They have. I suppose coming back to the question about students, I agree with people who say that see a difference in social interest and social motivation among students. But, I think that the potential is certainly there, there just aren’t any issues that are clear, and that grab people as there were in the early seventies and sixties. So there’s nothing to sink one’s teeth in.

Smith: I know that you have been involved in the community as well as the University, have you ever observed what they term town-gown problems?

Otto: I hear about them. I don’t experience them. Some of my best friends are town people. Yeah, I know sometimes those tensions exist, and they seem to bubble most frequently when the University people who are in charge of commercial activity get too far out into the community. I know that every once in a while people in the town object to loud parties, or so many college-age people having an impact, but I don’t sense, and I’ve never really experienced directly any hard feelings that mean much from that. I think Ellensburg basically realizes that it’s a lucky community to have the University, and the University is fortunate to have a community that’s small and basically supportive. So, the town-gown thing has not been an issue for me.

Smith: Have you had any relatives that ever attended Central?

Otto: No.

Smith: None of then has. We haven’t really covered..

Otto: Well, wait, my wife has, and my son.

Smith: All right.

Otto: Our son and daughter both did. I was looking too far beyond the nuclear family for relatives. Yeah, Elizabeth did both a Master’s Degree and an MFA Degree in Art here. And Justin, our son, graduated with an Individualized Bachelor’s Degree. And Allison graduated from Central in Psychology, a couple of years ago. So we’ve had close relatives attend Central.

Smith: Indeed. And were they happy in their years at Central? Do you think that Central gave them a good education?

Otto: Yeah. Elizabeth, with her work in Art, was very happy to have the quality of instruction that she received, and wanted to have a broader exposure to a bigger group of artists. Seattle helps, but it’s a hundred miles away. Justin started out here poo-pooing Central, and wanting to get as far away as he could, and what got him was the program that allows high school students to take classes here, he took Japanese, and what he found, and what Allison also found, was that if one is careful and thoughtful about choosing instructors and following that catalogue, the potential for a first class education here is solid. And both kids know that they have gained really good educations. Justin did a Master’s Degree at Tufts in International, Fletcher’s School of International Law and Relations, and he was really worried at first, and found that he was competitive with these Ivy Leaguers who were all around him. And Allison knows that her background in Developmental Psych was first class.

Smith: Good. That’s good to hear. What have I omitted that you want to talk about, about your years at Central?

Otto: I don’t know, I’ve mentioned a little bit about the pleasure that I’ve gotten from teaching, and I think for me, that’s by far been the main motivation and main gratification that I’ve got by working here. In a peripheral sense, Ellensburg has been a very easy, and nutritional place to live. We have very valuable friends here. The children grew up here, and we took them to Japan. Allison was in Zimbabwe with us, so we kind of balanced the narrowness of Ellensburg by getting out of the country three times, actually, with both kids for extended periods of time. So with that/caveat, I suppose, it’s been a good place to have two children grow up as well.

Smith: Would you like to close then with something about your philosophy of teaching. It seems to me in listening that your very first experience in Africa, indeed, colored your attitude about teaching for the rest of your career. Is that correct?

Otto: Yeah. I suppose there are a couple of basic elements. One has to do with young children. It was an interesting path that got me into Early Childhood, because 1 was in Chemistry and English. I was interested in Science and the Arts. And I do know from the work I’ve done in looking at young children and their learning, and especially language matters and children, that virtually anything that is effective in working with young children is effective in working with other ages of people. And the reverse is not true. Things that we do with older kids or adults, rarely translate to what we can effectively do with young children. There’s a lot of guidance available for looking at young children and their development for anyone who’s interested in working with people. And one of the things I’ve been able to do at Central is to be out of the country. I’ve had exchange visiting professor relationships at Morelia University, and Shimane University, and Kyoto University of Foreign Studies. I studied Spanish in Mexico for a quarter. I had a leave last year, and we were in Zimbabwe. It’s really nutritional for me especially, and my family, too. To be able to, for me, to pursue my interest in how other people do their lives, and some of the aspects of the relationships between culture and identity, language and identity, because that’s what interests me most, I suppose. So bei.ng able to do those two things, thanks to Central, and the way I’ve been able to have chances to do that. And, in terms of philosophy, my interest in how people in different cultural settings, see the world and do their lives, has always been very helpful in my understanding myself as an American, and schooling at all levels in this country, as well as what we might do inter-culturally or internationally.

Smith: That sounds like a nice little closing note.

Otto: OK.

Smith: So, unless you have something else that you want to get on to this tape for future researchers...

Otto: No.

Smith: We thank you very, very much for taking your time to come do this.

Otto: Sure. Thanks for keeping track of it; it’s valuable.