Jump to the pre-work instructions

Based on the results of our discussions in Palo Alto, the analysis of those results by our UConn colleagues, the evaluations of the Palo Alto Convening along with suggestions for the Pittsburgh Convening, as well as deliberations in a number of planning meetings, drafts, email exchanges, and conference calls have yielded a clear charge: The Pittsburgh Convening must continue the momentum of "The Palo Alto Principle Discussion" and serve as a transition from Phase I to Phase II of the Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate.

Phase I will result in a set of working principles. Phase II will focus research and development agendas that interrogate, refine, and validate principles.

What follows is an overview of how we intend to advance our work on principles to accomplish that transition. The overview addresses (1) clarifying the nature of the principles that will drive our efforts forward, (2) preparing for the convening, and (3) anticipating what we intend to accomplish during the convening.

Clarifying What We Mean by "Principles "

(or getting on the same page... before we turn it)

At the Palo Alto Convening in June, our colleagues from UConn launched us on our current trajectory: working toward a set of principles that might characterize excellent doctoral programs for those who aspire to practice education. As we continue along that trajectory, we must be clear about the nature of the principles that need to be developed as we reach the end of Phase I and then tested as we move into Phase II.

In the course of consulting the results and analysis of "The Palo Alto Principle Discussion" and the post-Palo Alto evaluative comments and suggestions, the planning groups and the CPED Advisory Group identified three key questions that need to be addressed in order to accomplish the transition. Each question is addressed briefly below and has influenced our preparation for and the anticipated outcomes of the Pittsburgh Convening

Are we developing principles within or across the areas of concentration?

By "area of concentration", we refer to the three groups that comprise the consortium: institutions that are working on programs for those who seek to practice school leadership, teacher education, or institutional leadership/higher education. (Some institutions are working in more than one area.) As we work within our institutions, our program areas and institutional contexts should certainly influence what we design, implement, and test. In order to accomplish the transition, however, we need to think across the areas of concentration.

For the Pittsburgh convening, we are looking for broader statements of principles that would apply to any doctoral program that seeks to prepare educational practitioners.

How specific or general should our statements of principles be?

Our colleagues from UConn report (see the session summary) that most of the statements that were generated during the Palo Alto "principle discussion" were specific to one of the CPED concepts (e.g., admissions, capstones, labs of practice) or to a particularly promising practice for, say, admissions (e.g., "expert practitioners should sit on the admissions"). That is not surprising given the context of our discussion, but it does suggest that there is a broader level to be considered here as well: principles that might govern an entire program (e.g., "build a broad experience base") rather than a particular practice attached to particular way of admitting students, proposing capstones, selecting laboratories of practice, etc. The point here is that there is a range from specific statements about how to operate various parts of our programs to principles that apply to an entire program. For the Pittsburgh convening, we expect to work initially with principle statements that range in applicability from specific elements of a program to the program in general.

What is the target we are trying to hit with our principles? (What, exactly, are these principles for?)

According to the Council of Graduate Schools, in their Task Force Report on the Professional Doctorate (2007), "...a professional doctoral degree should represent preparation for the potential transformation of [a] field of professional practice, just as the Ph.D. represents preparation for the potential transformation of the basic knowledge in a discipline." (p.6).

For the Pittsburgh convening, we propose that our principles for the professional doctorate in education be aimed at and judged against the following criterion: Preparing doctoral students who graduate with the potential to transform the professional practice of education.

The implication of this “target” for the principles we develop is that we clearly distinguish between the preparation for educational practice and the practice of education our graduates will engage. In Palo Alto we used the terms “Principles of Best Practice” and “Principles of Practice”, but the “practice” to which we were referring was the practice related to the implementation of a doctoral program designed to prepare educational practitioners. The term “practice” did not refer to specific practices of professional educators. As we move into Phase II of CPED–and begin to publish our work–we need to keep the distinction clearly before us. For that reason, we are proposing that we begin to employ a more precise label for the principles we will develop as we end Phase I and then test in Phase II.

For the Pittsburgh convening, we propose that the statements we develop be called Principles for the Professional Doctorate in Education (PPDEs). For guidance on how to craft a PPDE, please read the summary of his convening session.

If you have any questions or feedback about the process in general, please share it in a comment at the bottom of this page.

Related information from Barry:

This summer, Gaetane Jean-Marie asked Barry Sheckley et al to write a chapter for a book she and her colleagues at University of Oklahoma are publishing on graduate education. They framed the chapter around principles UConn used to design their EdD program and the lessons they learned while trying to implement those principles.

Three general principles and two key lessons are explained in the pre-publication manuscript attached to Barry's recent blog post.

Reference

Council of Graduate Schools. (2007). Task force report on the professional doctorate. Washington, D.C.: Author.

Instructions

Before October 14

• Submit 3-7 Principles for your institution in the CPED Principles section of the site or jump directly to the topics.

It is highly recommended that you watch the following instructions that will introduce you to the system: