1. Framework for
RecognitionThe Development of Quality Criteria for the Professional
Doctorate in Education
Presented at October 2013 Convening at Rutgers University
1
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
2
3. 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Distinguishand Improve the Professional
Doctorate in Education
Consortium
Activity
Consortium
begins
Working
Principles
Design
Concepts
FIPSE
Site Visits
DiP Award
Transition
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
Improvement
Communities
Improvement
Science
Members &
Recognition
25
Members
First
Re-Design
Programs
Expanding
the
concepts
Phase II
25 New
Members
Future of
CPED
Recognition
Focus
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
4
5. Framework 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
5
6. What 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
6
7. What 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
7
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
8
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
9
10. Small 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?
10
