Dear M.A.T. Program:

 

In light of the concerns of the entire class, I would like to address some major concerns that we, Cohort B of the MAT Program, are feeling. I am aware that you may have gotten some emails and letters already, and perhaps I would be repeating the concern of those letters as well, but I feel it is important that I, and others, still have this opportunity to voice our deep concerns. First of all, let me add that I do respect my teachers and professors. They are often quick to respond when we ask for assistance, and email us back efficiently. However, there are concerns about the structure of the coursework we are involved in and I do have some important concerns to address here.

 

When we entered into the MAT Program, we were expecting it to be as organized, thoughtful, and as applicable as the Teaching Credential program we had at UCI, which was great. From the Credential program, we felt mostly prepared and ready to face the world of education. In contrast, the MAT Program, especially for this summer, is evidently unprofessional, lacking thoughtfulness, not practicing the very teaching strategies and methods upon which we were taught to be effective educators.

 

Our concern partly concerns the workload. Yes, we are aware that we are in a Masters program. Thus, we expected a great deal of work to consume our time this summer. However, the level of work that we expected was much higher – we expected to be given Masters level work, not sub-Masters level work, such as, as some have said in class, “busy work”. We would have been more than willing to spend hours upon hours working on something that was truly challenging, thought-provoking, and held value to our profession as educators. Answering questions that provoke us to think reflectively is one great method of doing that. However, in the E-Portfolios and Case Studies that we have been working on, the same questions were prompted and asked over and over again, and often, in an unclear manner, and as a result, the thoughtfulness and reflection that could have resulted from such questions lost the intention of these questions. We simply end up “copying and pasting” information from one section to another – such is definitely not thought-provoking, reflective, problem-solving behavior that should be evident in a Masters program, especially one from the University of California, Irvine.

 

Three quarters of the program is already completed, and many of us in the MAT program are feeling as if we are at our wit’s end. We end up spitting out answers, copying and pasting from one document to the other, and filling in the blanks simply because we have this timeline due for one document or another; we truly aren’t even given much time to reflect upon our own work because the rate at which we must do twenty, thirty, or forty page documents is so fast. As educators, UCI has instilled into us the extreme importance of reflecting and assessing upon our own practices, modifying our teaching strategies and lessons when we see our students need adjustments in learning, and to always be flexible in order to ensure that the learning experience will be meaningful to them. The polar opposite is, unfortunately, what we see here in the MAT program. Perhaps I am not as knowledgeable – after all, I have only completed my first year of teaching. However, if we are to analyze our own teaching effectiveness based on the California Standards of the Teaching Profession (CSTP), should not the same be applied to the educators of the MAT program?

 

In the beginning, I was excited and eager to be a part of what seemed to be a program that would teach me how to be a more effective professional. Now, I am unhappy to say that I will not be proud of earning my Masters degree in this program. It is morally degrading and hypocritical to be given a degree, and even a higher salary, simply because we have endured a string of “busy work”. I understand that this is the first year the program has been implemented, and that we are all new at this; however, even as a new teacher, I have found myself modifying and adjusting when I see that my students did not understand the content. I believe the same situation is going on here. I myself do not know of any clear solutions, simply because I have no idea how the program is structured – did our teachers ever meet together to discuss their plans for us this summer? What plans were made? Did they all work together as a team so that we would be in a program that would address all the issues a MAT program should address? Were certain assignments given to us because they would relate to another class? I do not know the answers, although it appears that there had been no planning between the teachers of such a very important program. National Board Certified teachers, whom we respect and look up to as professionals, need to work together with the professors as well – not just one of the NBC teachers, but all those that are involved in grading our papers. Dr. Beck's incoherent answer in class about him looking at our scores, given by the NBC teachers, to determine our final grade in the course was unsatisfactory – if he is the one to deem our grades, he should very well have part in the reading and rubric grading of our E-Portfolios, and also give us feedback on our progress. Yes, there are many of us – about 70. However, for the secondary school teachers, they have anywhere between 150 to 180 students to assess every day. Given a week between each class, there should be more than sufficient time to have a few of the graders read our work, and provide clear and meaningful feedback on our progress.

 

I have some more suggestions that can still be efficiently implemented within the last few weeks of the Program. However difficult it may be, I do realize that, even if it is only 5 weeks until the end of the program, change can still be quickly and efficiently managed.

Though we are only first year teachers, the faculty at UCI can work with us. We do have sound, reasonable proposals that can still be Masters-level work, and together, we can create a program that will finish smoothly, demonstrate that the very essence of effective teaching can still be implemented, and uphold the reputation of UCI.

 

Some assignments asked for the same things, and were redundant, such as the E-Portfolio for Dr. Burge’s class and Dr. Beck’s class. In order to prevent non-reflective, thoughtless, “copy and paste” answers, those assignments can be merged together into one assignment. Providing one CSTP strand to focus on allows for depth in understanding of the subject; having all the strands in one domain to address is too much work to be completed in only one summer. The CSTP’s are guidelines for our profession, and these are standards by which we work towards every day of our teaching lives; they cannot all be achieved in a few lessons that are analyzed in a time limit of 10 weeks, where again, we are not even given the opportunity to truly reflect upon our own professional practice.

 

Thank you for taking the time to listen to our extensive concerns. We are aware that we will be able to help next year’s class through voicing our concerns, but we need to know that our education here is just as meaningful for us as educators. We did not spend a great deal of money nor time to be in a program that would stump our motivation to teach. We came seeking to be more effective, enlightened professionals that can go forth into the realm of education and be leaders who can make positive changes in educational practices. I hope that this can be fulfilled this summer.

 

Sincerely,

(me. I signed my name, for reals, hee hee...only I'm not putting it here. ^_^)