1. David Imig and Jill Perry American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE) 60 th Annual Meeting New Orleans, LA February 7, 2008 Envisioning a New Professional Practice Doctorate in Education

2. Drawing Distinctions: Building Confidence Strengthening Professions: Strengthening Doctoral Education Stewardship of a Discipline Stewardship of a Profession,

3. New conceptions/models for professional doctorates Demonstration proofs Candidate criteria Capstone experiences Core curricula Signature pedagogies Laboratories of practice Institutional change strategies CARNEGIE PROJECT ON THE EDUCATION DOCTORATES 2007-2010

4. Participating CPED Institutions California State University System Connecticut Duquesne (PA) Florida Houston (TX) Kansas Kentucky Louisville Lynn (FL) Maryland Missouri Nebraska Northern Illinois Oklahoma Pennsylvania State Rutgers (NJ) South Florida Southern California Vanderbilt (TN) Vermont Virginia Virginia Commonwealth Virginia Tech Washington State

5. A Gathering Storm – Qualitative Concerns & Doctoral Education Quality Considerations (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

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

7. Areas of Consensus The PhD and PPD should be different – maybe! “Coursework-only” doctorates are unacceptable – professional practice experiences are essential. The PPD is dependent upon “engaged research” – with questions derived from external entities. There is need for explicit criteria for professional accreditation, including national standards. There is the need for the PPD to be as rigorous as the PhD in Education Standards of excellence must be more than credit hours earned.

8. CPED Seek Two, Clear, Distinct, Different Approaches to Doctoral Education (PhD and EdD) Work Across CADREI Institutions; Collaboratively Develop New Professional Practice Doctorates (Engage CSU Institutions) Use NBPTS Assessment Model: Outcomes/ Expectations Focused (Where Applicable) Appreciate Efforts of Others: University of Southern California & Peabody College, Vanderbilt University

9. Tripartite Foci School Leadership Teacher Education Organizational Leadership school principals teacher leaders Curriculum specialists superintendents college & university situated faculty clinical and school-based teacher educators community college teaching faculty professional & managerial staff of agencies & organizations Community college leadership

10. Resources to Guide the Work 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)

11. Seeking Professional Formation Emphasizing the Scholarship of Practice Creating New Capstone Experiences Creating Engaging Intellectual Communities Creating Signature Pedagogies Using Common Performance Assessments Establishing a Curricular Core Documenting the Process Requiring Candidates to be in a Current Practice How? Design Projects A. Design Principles

12. Supporters/Sponsors AACTE AERA CF CADREI CGS UCEA University of Maryland – College Park

13. Issues and 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

14. When? CPED Calendar How? Design Principles, Components, Strategies & Outcomes How? Bi-annual Convenings In-between: Communication & Progress Reports Creating Demonstration Proofs Organizing the Project

15. FebruaryInitial IntroductionAt AACTE JuneScholarship of Teaching & Laboratories of Practice At Carnegie OctoberAssessment/Capstones & Signature Pedagogies At Peabody 2008: Experimental Phase: Incorporation, Implementation, Documentation 2007: Conceptual & Design Phase: Introduction to concepts and ideas 2009-10: Deliberation & Dissemination When? The CPED Calendar February Documentation & Updates At AACTE June Modeling Successful Practices At Carnegie September Impacting Other Programs At USC

16. Expectations Admissions Themes “Signature Pedagogy”  Habits of the Mind  Habits of the Heart  Habits of the Hand Core Curriculum Specialty Curriculum Faculty Qualifications Mentoring Designs Role of Assessments Laboratories of Practice Methodological Components (Qualitative & Quantitative) Theoretical Components (Epistemological & Ethical) Assessments (NBPTS) Capstone Experiences How? Continued B. Redesign Components

17.  Build on CID Experiences  Focus on the PPD Components  Redesign the PhD as Companion Work  Position Assessments as Prime Driver of PPD Designs  Focus on “Value-Added” vs. Replacement  Focus on Practice Sites vs. Program Emphases  Appreciate Standards and Accreditation Implications How? Continued C. Strategies and Expected Outcomes

18. When? CPED Bi-annual Convenings Signature activity of Carnegie Foundation programs Central feature=coming together CPED Convening Idea Centered Mix of Pedagogies Multiple Voices High Expectations Unstructured Conversations

19. June 2007 Example of Pre-work Group work during Convening 3. Investigate clinically-based professional practice degrees & Identify key elements of their of laboratories of practice. Structure? Expectations of preparation? Laboratory of practice  course/dissertation How do faculty interact to define or discuss relationship? Assessment? Staging process in the laboratory of practice/fieldwork/internship? Advantages/disadvantages of the laboratory of practice? Utilizing Assignment 3, please discuss the following questions: 1.What are some good examples of fields that utilize laboratories of practice to promote scholarship of practice as well as prepare future professionals? 2.Why is the laboratory a key part of the training received? 3.Describe some key components that comprise these laboratories of practice? 4.What are the benefits of these laboratories for Faculty or Students (depending on your group)? 5.How is this laboratory integrated into the program to enhance both faculty and student work? 6.Create a list of the 5 most important outcomes of your group discussion that will inform and help direct the incorporation of laboratories of practice into EdD or PPD programs in Education.

20. 2: Investigating Learning Outcomes with Assessment Data What are the outcomes of your pilot/model program? Bring examples of the data you gather and use regarding student performance and be prepared to answer the following questions: 1.How do you know whether the program outcomes are met? Who analyzes them and how they used? What measures of student performance are most valued in program assessment and review? How are the performance data used to strengthen and redesign courses and experiences? 2.How does this information inform your consideration of capstone courses and experiences? How do your students address substantive problems collectively and individually? What is the artifact that they produce that demonstrates mastery of concepts that span several topic areas in education policy and practice and require interaction with other disciplines and fields of study? What oral and written reports are expected? 3.What research questions do the data generate that will further your institution’s work and inform consideration of the capstone properties? Assessing Outcomes Utilizing your pre-work, create a rubric to judge the quality of your program using student performance data -What are some program assessment ideas that will serve your research design? - How will your program collect data about a cohort or group of students? - What will that collection look like? October 2007 Example of Pre-work Group work during Convening

21. In between …. Communication: On-line Community Reporting Out: Progress Reports

23. Documenting CPED Progress Reports Using logic model elements as reporting categories Submit Progress Reports a month before convenings Inputs Activities Outputs Outcomes Impact

24. What have we learned thus far? Processes, Trends & Challenges

25. Processes: “bottom up” Shulman et al (2005) Campus deliberations/discussion– engaging intellectual communities of stakeholders to define themes, directions and processes Information gathering—surveys of stakeholders, institutional data Teams engaging in project design around a central themes, notions, ideas, identity that give context to change and set project apart from other reforms

26. Trends Program Design Student cohorts On-line delivery of programs Catering to part-time students = community

27. Trends Incorporating Design Concepts Signature pedagogies Habits of the mind: consumers of research, cognitive apprentices, talking papers Habits of the hand: mentoring, apprenticeship, arts of the practice Habits of the heart: social justice, diversity, cultural leadership Scholarship of teaching Faculty self-reflection Map curriculum to learning outcomes Team teaching Laboratories of practice Target districts Face-to-face meetings with professionals Contextual rotations Internships Current work place Capstones Backward mapping Use of state standards Program design & leadership analysis

28. Institutional examples of progress University of Nebraska-Lincoln Teaching, Learning, & Teacher Education field-testing a selection of “arts of the practical” course offerings a core doctoral seminar experience University of Nebraska-Lincoln Teaching, Learning, & Teacher Education field-testing a selection of “arts of the practical” course offerings a core doctoral seminar experience University of Connecticut cohort of 10 students, newly designed, six-credit course sequence focused: how to read quantitative research articles, how to interpret and understand the findings, how to apply the findings to address problems of practice University of Connecticut cohort of 10 students, newly designed, six-credit course sequence focused: how to read quantitative research articles, how to interpret and understand the findings, how to apply the findings to address problems of practice Washington State University designation of core research courses & experiences Incorporated into plan of study-- Ed.D.s in Educational Leadership, Teaching and Learning, and Community College Leadership Washington State University designation of core research courses & experiences Incorporated into plan of study-- Ed.D.s in Educational Leadership, Teaching and Learning, and Community College Leadership Duquesne University framed around identity= “Scholarship for Schools” design proposals, test prototypes and study process and products Duquesne University framed around identity= “Scholarship for Schools” design proposals, test prototypes and study process and products

29. AVOID perception of “mission creep” or “degree inflation” AVOID “PhD-lite” tag AVOID “PhD-lite” tag ARRIVE at a set of standards for doctoral programs GAIN credibility for the EdD as the degree of choice for professional practitioners GAIN credibility for the EdD as the degree of choice for professional practitioners On-going understanding of design concepts: What are they? How to create institutional buy-in and change? CPED Initiative & Institutional Challenges

30. Quality Considerations  Responding to Demonstrated Need  Contributing to Communities  Advancing Professional Practice  Transforming P-12 Schools & Colleges  Meeting Accreditation Standards  Ensuring Consistency with GSE Mission & Goals  Using Markers of Program Success  Holding to Equivalency Expectations with PhD in Education  Ensuring Intellectual & Material Resources

31. Can We Change? “….despite…repeated calls for reform, resistance to change has been strong. Major problems persist and some are worsening.” “…given the inertia of academic depart- ments and the spotty results of past reform efforts, widespread success may be elusive.” The Real Science Crisis, CHE, Septem- Ber 21, 2007

32. Thank You! For further information contact: David Imig: dimig@cpedinitiative.org Jill Perry: jperry5@cpedinitiative.org

33. Compelling Demands on Education Schools  Reliance on Scientifically Based Evidence/Education as Science (IES-NICHD-NRC)  Focus on PK-12 Student Learning as Core for Teacher Education (APA, CADREI)  Congressional Accountability Expectations (Ed Trust, AACTE, APA) in the 110 th Congress  ED Advocacy for Assessment & Accountability (Miller & Spellings’ Report/Barnes & Thompson Report) (Hickok, NYT, 10/11 Op.Ed.)  Impact of the Levine Reports (ESP) and the RAND Study of TNE (Carnegie)  Competition from Alternative Providers (Fordham & NCTQ, PPI & AEI)

34. Historical Considerations PhD in Education – 1893 – TCCU (William Russell) EdD – 1920 – Harvard (Henry Holmes) Professionalization of Preparation & Practice (William Bagley & CF) AACTE Studies of the Doctorate (1960s) Doctoral Granting Sites: 300+ (?) Only 25-30% of Degree Recipients Teach or Do Research in Higher Education