1.3 Doctoral program issues: accreditation of programs  (Page 8/10)

1. It is unclear what they [NCATE] want [in terms of reviewing doctoral progrqams, other than that which relates to certifiation within a program].

2. The NCATE process seems bureaucratic and compliance-oriented.

3. The NCATE process is just paperwork.

4. It is an artificial process--it does not reflect what we do [in doctoral programs].

5. NCATE can be useful, particularly the cross linkages between programs.

6. It is really a stretch for NCATE to be looking at doctoral programs; this is where UCEAs should definitely come in.

7. NCATE can provide leverage [for any needed changes at the university level].

8. [ISLLC/ELCC] did provide us with a set of national standards.

9. NCATE is negatively affecting our programs [not explained].

10. UCEA could influence the ELCC process politiclly through its national network.

11. UCEA should take a stand on this issue.

12. We, the professionals within doctoral programs, need to influence the ELCC and NCATE process so that reviews are relevant and staffed by appropriate members.

13. NCATE's teacher educators shouldn't be evaluating our (educational leadership) doctoral programs.

14. ELCC standards should include a standard that focuses on what professors do (teaching, research and scholarship) and the contribution of each to efective preparation of doctoral candidates.

Young indicated the plenum was both positive and negative about UCEA taking on a role of accrediting doctoral programs. She stated that concerns were raised related to the need for establishing standards for such programs and in that, there may be as one member stated,“an over-Americanization of UCEA,”because UCEA is an international organization. Members also expressed other concerns related to doubling the work in reference to conducting ELCC reviews, NCATE reviews, SACS reviews, etc. Young, in consideration of standards, reminded us that there are UCEA program standards for membership as follows. Programs under consideration for membership in UCEA undergo an external review, internal review, review by the UCEA Board, and a vote from the Plenum based on the following 11 standards.

1. Faculty within preparation programs should make significant efforts to identify, develop, and promote relevant knowledge focused on the essential problems of schooling, leadership and administrative practice.

2. The preparation program should involve a critical mass of full-time tenure-track faculty members (typically five or more) whose appointments are in the department in which educational leaders are educated and who exhibit excellence in scholarship, teaching and service in educational leadership. A majority of educational leadership coursework must be taught by these full-time faculty.

3. The preparation program should make use of an advisory board of educational leadership stakeholders and involve leadership practitioners in program planning, teaching, and field internships.

4. Preparation programs should engage in collaborative relationships with other universities, school districts, professional associations, and other appropriate agencies to inform program content, promote diversity within the preparation program and the field, and generate sites for clinical study, field residency, and applied research.