David Imig, Matt Militello, Amy Mattingly Friday Institute, North Carolina State University Raleigh, NC October 31, 2011

 Common Commitment to Distinguishing and Differentiating Between the Doctorates in Education (142 Colleges & Universities) ◦ Research Scholars vs. Scholarly Practitioners ◦ Practical and Narrative Knowledge vs. Analytic Knowledge  Guided by a Set of Shared Principles  Work Based on a Shared Language (Shulman) ◦ Capstones and Decathlons and Signature Pedagogies  Work funded by the Carnegie Foundation, Spencer Foundation and FIPSE

Strengthening Professions by Strengthening Doctoral Education Fostering the Stewardship of a Profession Vis a vis Stewardship of a Discipline Lee S. Shulman

The PhD and EdD should be different “ Coursework-only ” doctorates are unacceptable – professionalpractice experiences are essential. The EdD is dependent upon “ engaged research ” – with questions derived from external entities There is need for explicit criteria for framing and assessing the EdD There is the need for the EdD to be as rigorous as the PhD in Education Standards of excellence must be more than credit hours earned.

 Quality Expectations (Students) ◦ FT Study/FT Support ◦ GRE Scores ◦ TCD Expectations (3-5 Years) ◦ Research Opportunities/Presentations ◦ Publications ◦ Placement at Research Extensive Institutions  Quality Considerations (Program) ◦ Student Mentoring/Faculty Advisement ◦ Employer Satisfaction ◦ Faculty Publications and Citations ◦ Candidate Satisfaction ◦ External Funding of Programs ◦ Stakeholder Perceptions ◦ Reputational Rankings Prepare Leaders in the Service of Others and the Common Good

Where Our Doctoral Students Go? Community College/ Liberal Arts/ Comprehensive College Faculty & Leaders PK-12 School Leadership/ Teaching Agency/Organization For Profit Providers/ Businesses Other/ International Graduate School of Education Research Extensive

 Framed around questions of equity, ethics and social justice  Prepares leaders who will make a positive difference in the lives of individuals, families, organizations & communities  Provides opportunities to develop collaborative and communication skills with diverse communities  Emphasize the generation, transformation & use of a professional knowledge base

 Common Commitment to Distinguishing and Differentiating Between the Doctorate in Education (142 Colleges & Universities) ◦ Research Scholars vs. Scholarly Practitioners ◦ Practical and Narrative Knowledge vs. Analytic Knowledge  Guided by a Set of Shared Principles  Work Based on a Shared Language (Shulman) ◦ Capstones and Decathlons and Signature Pedagogies

 Directed at Real Problems and Real Solutions  Emphasis is on Preparing Transformational Leaders to Change Schools and Colleges & Other Learning Organizations  Enabling Doctoral Programs to Meet the Needs of Practitioners (Part Time Students with Full Time Responsibilities)  Doing So in a Rigorous, Responsible, Practical, Transparent, and Ethical Manner

 Perception: Graduate Education has “Changed Little in 40 Years” (Measuring Up 2006)  Competition: Domestic Alternative Providers and Foreign Universities and Distance Learning Opportunities (Carey Report)  Need for Standards for Doctoral Programs: (Miller/Spellings & Higher Ed Commission)  Growing Consensus: A Need for Professional Practice Doctorates (Psychology, A&S, Pharmacology, Engineering)  Funding Issues: State & Federal Levels (Declining Public Support/Rising Dependence on Tuition)  Campus Expectations: Emphasis on Research and High Quality (NRC, AERA and NSF/CGS 2020 Project)  Need to Attend to Career Path (CGS, 2010)

 Dissatisfaction with the PhD for Practitioners (Lack of Fit, TCD, Cost-Benefits)  Need for a More Practice Oriented Degree  Need for Alignment with NBPTS Certification  New Focus on Clinical Practice (NCATE)  Alignment with Other ProfDs in Graduate Schools & Professional Schools (DSW Clinical, DM, PsyD, DPT)  Competition from Alternative Providers

CAPSTONES CORE MILESTONESMETHODS COHORT MEASURES

 The culminating experience that demonstrates the scholarly practitioner’s ability to solve problems of practice, the Dissertation in Practice exhibits the doctoral candidate’s ability “to think, to perform, and to act with integrity” (Shulman, 2005).  Based on expressed need from the student’s field or practice; be a specific problem of practice; demonstrate expertise and knowledge; and demonstrate a scholarly approach.

 Rutgers ◦ A study of a problem of practice, typically in the student’s workplace that requires use of current literature and inquiry methodology.  an extended report that describes method and findings intended to influence practice either in the setting of the study or in the surrounding policy context.  Students have the option of working on their dissertation projects in groups organized around key topics of interest  University of Southern California ◦ Thematic dissertations - generally organized around field-based issues or problems  Each student works with several others in a group, either on related topics or with the same database, to produce his or her own, unique dissertation.  Students begin with a problem and then analyze the literature to find guidance on how to study it.  In addition, there are experimental groups underway that are using a “gap analysis” approach to work with districts on targeted problems along the lines of a consultant model.

Arizona State University ◦ an applied inquiry project that addresses a major issue the candidates face in their educational setting. The candidate is both the actor and researcher. Includes:  a targeted review and synthesis of relevant literature  an initiative, selected on the basis of published research, to address the identified problem  a research design that includes the collection of data, scheme of analysis, and framework for assessing the effects of the proposed action project  an analysis of data collected and presentation of results/conclusions  a discussion of the implications of findings for policy, practice, and research, as well as a discussion of the leadership lessons learned.  University of Kentucky ◦ Cohort completes a “manuscript dissertation” consisting of three manuscripts similar to that used in the bench sciences.  One of these manuscripts will be a collaboratively written technical report created specifically for the client, KCTCS.  Each student is also required a research article based on the research component of the team project they personally designed and executed.  The third manuscript may take the form of a second research article, a policy paper, or a methodological essay.  All three manuscripts must be of publishable quality.

 Shulman, L.S., et.al. (2006) Reclaiming Education’s Doctorates. (ER)  Walker, G.E., et.al. (2008) The Formation of Scholars: Rethinking Doctoral Education for the 21 st Century. (CF)  Golde, C.M., et.al. (2005) Envisioning the Future of Doctoral Education: Preparing Stewards of the Discipline. (CF)  Lynch, C. & Hulse, C. (2007) Task Force Report on the Professional Doctorate. (CGS)  Shulman, L.S. (2000) Rethinking the Doctorate. (CF)  Sullivan, W. (2005) Work and Integrity: The Crisis & Promise of Professionalism in America. (CF)

THANK YOU! Jill A. Perry David Imig

Arizona State California State System Central Florida Colorado (Denver) Connecticut Duquesne (PA) Florida Houston Illinois (Chicago) Kansas Kentucky (Lexington) Louisville Lynn (FL) Maryland Missouri (Columbia) Nebraska (Lincoln) Northern Illinois Oklahoma Pennsylvania State Rutgers (NJ) Southern California Vanderbilt Vermont Virginia Commonwealth Virginia Tech Washington State William & Mary

 Study the process of change in Educ Schools  Expanding membership  Inform institutions on the CPED change process  Pairing with a 1 st Wave member  Expanding influence  Focus on rural and minority serving institutions

 Kept 22 institutions at the table  Fostered a common language (labs of practice, signature pedagogy, scholarship of practice)  Embraced 6 principles for program development  Designed rubrics for assessment  Sponsored an emerging literature on the PPD

School Leaders Leaders for PK-12 Schools Teacher Educators Leaders for Schools and Colleges Organizational Leaders Learning Organization Leaders

Issues & Concerns Faculty qualifications & advisement considerations Admission criteria (GRE scores) & prior work experience considerations Group (team) products vs. individual candidate contributions Early decision re: degree of choice Status perceptions & qualitative concerns Resource considerations

PRACTICAL REASONING REDEFINITION OF EXPERTISE USE OF SPACE MULTIPLE PATHWAYS ECOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS

 CADREI Sponsored ( Carnegie Foundation & Spencer Foundation Supported)  Sought Two Distinct Pathways to the Education Doctorate ( Research Doctorate and Professional Practice Doctorate)  Twenty Five Participating Institutions  Multiple Stages of Implementation: ◦ Design Stage ◦ Implementation Stage ◦ Experimentation (Redesign Efforts)

FIPSE Support for a Three Year Initiative Focus on Data Gathering—we have:  Data on the institutional change process for SOEs  Ed.D. Program development information Phase II will allow us to…  Test these data and collect more  Learn from the data and the experiences of our members  Expand and share our findings Goal is to demonstrate to the education community that the CPED- influenced Professional Practice Doctorate is the means to reclaim the Education Doctorate and make it the choice degree for educational practitioners.

 Expanding membership  Pairing with a 1 st Wave member  Expanding influence  Focus on rural and minority serving institutions

 Demographic Data on Applicants & Admitted Students, Graduates & Successful Practitioners  Cohort Data on Knowledge & Skills, Beliefs & Attitudes - Across Program Data  Information on Course Designs, Labs of Practice, Internships, Apprenticeships  Candidate Course Grades, Portfolios, Other Artifacts  Candidate Success on Comps, Proposals & Capstones (Shared Rubrics)  Candidate Success in Appointments, Promotions, Supervisor Evaluations, etc.  Candidate Success on Certifying Examinations

 Sustaining the CADREI Commitment  Agreeing to test the outcomes and to measure the impact (data sharing)  Supporting a faculty member to serve as the PI  Funding for GA to support work  Supporting travel to convenings and national meetings  Influence in shaping the agenda