Report of October 20-21, 2008 Convening
Monday, October 20
The convening was designed to make progress toward the goals of the CSU CPED, focusing on envisioning stewards of the profession, examining measures of performance for the education doctorate, and defining a path toward the steward of the profession that would include assessments, benchmarks, and milestones.
The Convening began with a discussion with David Imig, Program Director of the National Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate (CPED) and Jill Perry, Project Director. They provided an overview of the National CPED and its objectives, giving the CPED participants a clear sense of the outcomes sought – not simply re-framing the education doctorate but developing new measures for assessing Ed.D. programs and candidates that attest to quality of preparation and impacts of programs on graduates.
The Convening discussions continued with an examination of the meaning of steward of the profession. Participants asked, “What is the meaning of a steward in a professional field – in particular, in educational leadership. They asked what the set of knowledge, skills, and dispositions are that are characteristics of a steward. They further examined how one would measure these characteristics. They then examined the attributes in their practitioner roles that characterize stewards of the profession.
The CSU CPED participants then defined levels of performance of highly qualified, qualified, and unsatisfactory performance for stewards of the profession. The starting point for the analysis focused on the issue of the skills that programs want in their graduates. What is a program’s ideal candidate? What does a good candidate look like? How does a program know if it has achieved the profile of an ideal candidate? In asking these questions, the CPED participants defined what an Ed.D. candidate would like at different levels of mastery of professional performance and professional practice.
CSU CPED participants tied their discussion of assessing levels of performance to the concept of stewards of the profession. In addition, the question was asked whether there were measures of performance that would be appropriate for a portfolio assessment of candidate performance. The question was raised in the context of whether a portfolio approach for assessing candidate performance could be envisioned that might be used on a widespread basis. David Imig and Jill Perry put this issue in context by describing the National CPED work with the Stuart Foundation and its purpose of examining the potential national assessments in educational leadership.
Campus posters were presented and shared. Graduate students led the discussion of the posters. Each poster presented a number of features of a campus’ Ed.D. program that related directly to the issues of central concern in the national CPED.
Day 1 adjourned and many of the CPED participants continued discussions of common interests at dinner.
Tuesday, October 21
The second day began with discussion of the content knowledge, experiences, skills, and habits of mind that are important for a new Ed.D. graduate to have to met the challenges of the profession. CPED participants worked in groups and addressed questions regarding these attributes and their implications for assessment of desired candidate outcomes, criteria for capstone experiences, and benchmarks or milestone of student learning prior to the capstone.
Participants defined elements of performance for candidates in P-12 Educational Leadership and in Community College Educational Leadership programs. They discussed measures of student performance that are planned for their program assessment and review. Attention was given to direct evaluation of student work and how it will be used to determine whether student learning outcomes have been met.
Participants discussed research questions that underlie their assessment plans. They also discussed ways in which performance data will be used to strengthen and redesign courses and experiences.
The participants discussed the question of what are the most significant learning outcomes in their programs. They discussed the research questions generated through analyses of candidate performance. And they examined how these findings will be used in consideration and re-consideration of courses and experiences.
Particularly important questions were posed about student diversity. One key question addressed was the importance of assessing whether programs are preparing a group of leaders equipped to address California’s diverse public schools. Another issue focused on diversity within Ed.D. programs and assessing whether programs are succeeding fully in meeting the needs of diverse candidates.
The CSU CPED participants then considered the potential for building, as part of a scholarly community, on the experiences that are distinctive and common across the CSU Ed.D. programs. The discussion focused on the potential for preparing a scholarly work suitable for publication that would address the contributions of the CSU Ed.D. programs. As an example of such work, a paper about CSU Ed.D. programs scheduled for presentation at the 2008 UCEA meetings was described in which three campuses are to be presenters.
As the meeting came to a conclusion, participants reflected on the two days’ work and on next steps. There was a shared clear sense of the close fit between the objectives of the CPED and the new CSU Ed.D. programs, influenced in part by the programs’ distinctive feature of close partnerships with school districts and community colleges. CSU CPED members considered the two days highly productive. They anticipate moving forward over the next year with joint activities that explicate the CSU Ed.D. programs, their features, and their contributions in academic venues, building on the CPED framework
top of pageCampus Responses to
CPED June 2009 Pre-Work:
Participating campuses are examining a number of fundamental issues related to the Doctorate of Education (Ed.D.). Details are available on the CSU CPED Community of Practice web site.