Framework for recognition final 10.2013
- 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