March 20, 2007

GOOD EVENING DR. HANSEN, BOARD MEMBERS, AND SUPT STOERNER.

                        I last spoke to you in December about the proposed addition of 30 minutes to the day for secondary teachers in the 2007-2008 school year.   It has since been removed from next year’s plan, and my members want me to express their appreciation for that change.

                        Tonight, I need to speak with you again - - this time,  about another directive that is having an unanticipated negative effect on the professional staff in this district  - - it is an on-line prescriptive training program called Alief ISD How To Master Technology.    This is to be accomplished in 3 phases ending by August of 2007. 

                        The course is elaborate and lengthy.  It is broken down into 6 major sections, each of which is composed of 3 to 5 tracks.  Each track is composed of 2 to 6  specific lessons.  And the lessons are anywhere from 5 to 30 pages or more each.   The format of each track requires a pre-test (minimum score 100) followed by remedial prescriptive lessons followed by a post-test.   It is too complex to describe briefly here.   I refer you to the website for more clarification:

http://aliefisd.howtomaster.com/scripts/student/courses_view.asp

                        Yesterday, I sent out a quick survey of our members to substantiate some of the discussions I have had in the last several weeks with many members and non-members about this technology training.  As of noon today, 242 of our members had returned the survey.  It asked members to indicate HOW MUCH TIME they had already spent (most had done only 2 sections so far) and HOW MUCH USE they derived from the content in the course itself.   The survey revealed two pieces of information I wanted you to have:

1.  It takes too much time to master the content:
                34%  spent up to 7 hrs
                45% spent from 7-15 hrs
                16% spent from 16-30 hrs
                  5%  have spent at least 30 hrs

 2.  The content produces little educational value for the learner:
                    67% found it of low or no practical value to them

In addition,  the program has inaccuracies and mistakes throughout - - but, worst of all, it does not represent best practices for instruction or higher level thinking strategies.    

                        As I see it, this prescriptive training program is taking up our valuable time when we might more productively spend it on our preparation for doing the jobs you hired us to do.  

                        Randy Johnston TSTA Staff and I have spoken to Dr. Stoerner regarding this issue since December.  At first, the district said that teachers could at least count 7 hrs toward our required 14 hrs staff development for next year.  But that was rescinded within a few weeks, and all teachers were told that the only credit for this training would be 21 hrs to apply toward the 150 hrs required by TEA every 5 years.   Unfortunately, that TEA requirement is only for teachers certified since 1999.  The rest of us get no credit for this massive commitment of our time.  

                        If we need more technology training, why not offer staff development credit and set aside times for that credit to be earned?   Give us time on task, qualified instructors, and access to the technology we are learning to use. 

                        On behalf of my membership, I ask that you reconsider and re-instate the 7 hrs district staff development credit for completion of the course.  To verify that the individual has indeed spent 7 hrs, the program has a built-in counter that measures each participant’s total time spent.   You might also offer various of the lessons as staff development during the summer months to those of us able to attend. 

Thank you.                   

Mary Ann Reuter 
President, Alief-TSTA/NEA