1.3 Doctoral program issues: accreditation of programs  (Page 9/10)

5. The preparation program should be conceptually coherent and clearly aligned with some quality leadership standards, informed by current scholarship on the essential problems o schooling, leadership and administrative practice, and should make use of research-based, best practices in leadership preparation. In particular, the content of the preparation program should address problems of practice including leadership for student learning and diversity. Also, the processes of the preparation program should be based on adult learning principles.

6. The preparation program should engage in on-going programmatic evaluation and enhancement.

7. The preparation program should include concentrated periods of study and supervised clincial practice in settings that enable leadership candidates an opportunity to work with diverse groups of students and teachers.

8. The preparation program should be characterized by systematic, written recruitment and admission plans that rely on multiple sources of evidence and show deliberate efforts to attract applicants who demonstrate leaderhip potentil with particular attention given to increasing diversity within the program.

9. The preparation program should develop and maintain systematic efforts to assist all students in professional placement and career advancement.

10. The preparation program faculty should participate in the development, delivery, and evaluation of systematic professional development programs for educational leaders, in cooperation with appropriate professional associations and other educational and social agencies.

11. The preparation program should offer regular professional development for program faculty to enhance their skills in leadership preparation, research methods, and other content.

In addition to these 11 standards, the UCEA program review matrix in Appendix A, provides a comprehensive review system in which programs must provide evidence of the standards. The standards and matrix were provided via the conversation with Michelle Young. We consider the UCEA standards and review matrix a serious contender for reviewing or even accrediting doctoral programs overall and providing feedback for improvement, particularly in light of a recent ELCC/NCATE review of a doctoral program conducted by one of the authors.

Doctoral programs reviewed by ELCC/NCATE appear to be a certification programs for the superintendency. Doctoral programs that come under the ELCC review and that have as the main focus-- superintendency certification programs, particularly within the EdD programs, appear to be simple“training”programs. Arthur Levine, in Educating School Leaders, argued that such EdD programs need to be eliminated and replaced with effective masters degree programs for placing educational administrators and should be considered their terminal degree. He argued that the doctorate should be reserved for more academic engagements. It is this case, the case of the argument for more academic engagements that we agree. Young differentiated the EdD and the PhD. Having the EdD as a superintendent certification program would certainly differentiate it from the PhD. However, for some programs, as stated previously, it is required by a state higher education board to offer only EdD programs as opposed to PhD programs in name only. If EdD programs maintain comparable rigor of a PhD program and are not simply certification training programs that include some form of an action research thesis/dissertation, then those programs should not fall under the scrutiny of ELCC. In fact, ELCC would not even approve many EdD programs under its current guidelines for district level certification reviews. The goals and local standards of many of the programs do not fit within the building or district level reviews conducted by ELCC as it currently conducts the reviews