1

Framework for RecognitionThe Development of Quality Criteria for the Professional Doctorate in Education

Presented at October 2013 Convening at Rutgers University

2

Committee Members

• Chris Ray, North Dakota State, Chair• Kathleen Haywood, Missouri – St. Louis• Colleen MacKinnon, Vermont• Deanna Sands, Seattle (formerly UC-Denver)• Amy Wells Dolan, Mississippi• Jill Perry, CPED • Michael Learn, North Dakota State, GA

Reclaim

Reframe

Re-Design

Research & Development

2007

2008

2009

2010 2011 201

2201

3

Distinguish and Improve the Professional Doctorate in Education

Consortium Activity

Consortium begins

Working Principles

Design Concepts

FIPSE Site Visits

DiP AwardTransition to 503(c)

Research Focus

Scholarly Practitioner

& Laboratory of Practice

Capstone Design,

Signature Pedagogy

Rubric of EdD

Candidates

CPED Networks & Critical

Friends

CPED Framework

& Mentorship

Network Improvemen

t Communitie

s

Improvement Science

Members & Recognition

25 Members

First Re-Design Programs

Expanding the

concepts

Phase II25 New

Members

Future of CPED

RecognitionFocus

4

Recognition Objectives

• Articulates the nature and function of the doctorate of education for scholarly leaders in practice-based settings

• Demonstrates effectiveness that adheres to the CPED Design Concepts (2009) and Working Principles (2010)

• Provides a framework for continuous program improvement

• Recognizes differing phases of program development • Expects active participation and contributions to CPED

organizational activities and initiatives

5Framework Process

• Recognition Committee• Bi-weekly Meetings since June convening

• Reviewed Example Criteria• e.g., CAEP, CACREP, UCEA, National Board, DNP,

DSW, PSM, Carnegie Community Engagement, Baldrige

• Drafted “Guidelines” Document• Numerous Rounds of Committee Edits• Edits Based Upon Initial External Feedback

• Disseminated “Framework” to Consortium

6What Recognition Is

• A way to demonstrate program quality to others (both internally and externally)

• A way to distinguish those who have made substantial progress

• An understanding that different institutions have achieved different levels of implementation CPED Working Principles and Design Concepts

• A way to demonstrate impact of CPED• A marketing strategy

7What Recognition Is Not

• Accreditation, but it is a possible resource to support accreditation

• Mandatory• Overly Rigid / Formal• Criteria will be aspirational but broad• Sources of evidence will largely be determined by

institution

• Time-Consuming

8

Benefits of Recognition

• Clear Statement and Demonstration of Quality to Internal and External Constituencies

• Better Marketing to Students and Education Professionals

• Enhanced Development of New CPED Members• Improved Access to Grant Funding through

Demonstrated Quality and Collaboration• Stepped Benefits to Institutions

9

Development of Criteria

• A process of fully unpacking the Framework• Criteria and forms of measurement will be identified

as we move forward

• Similar developmental process to Framework• Draft Criteria• Pilot Feedback (Internal & External)• Distributed to Consortium• Pilot Criteria / Recognition Process

10Small Group Discussion

• Brainstorm how might CPED measure the 8 components?• Individually brainstorm what you are already doing

related to the 8 components?• Share and discuss ideas at your table.• Group Discussion: What measures are needed?

11

Discussion / Q&A