Ten years and counting: salient doctoral program design and delivery  (Page 3/10)

Wheatley (2002) emphasized the power of dialogue by stating,“The very simple process of council takes us to a place of deep connection with one another. And, as we slow down the conversation to a pace that encourages thinking, we become wise and courageous actors in our world”(p. 9). She further added,“Real change begins with the simple act of people talking about what they care about”(p. 22). Wheatley (2002) emphasized,“I think the greatest source of courage is to realize that if we don’t act, nothing will change for the better”(p. 27). Donaldson (2001) stressed that leadership without action is shallow and artificial. Educational leadership preparation programs provide an opportunity for reflection and dialogue about important issues of educational practice and can influence transformative actions in schools (Dantley, 2005).

Context for the Study

A decade serves as a juncture, a marker in time, and is frequently a time when individuals contemplate the previous ten years while considering the decade to come. As we enter the tenth year for a newly developed doctoral program in educational leadership, we also are aware of the immense criticisms that have continued to be waged concerning educational leadership preparation programs. Reforms offered in the last ten years have included both suggestions for structure, process, content and delivery. The Educational Leadership Doctoral Program at Stephen F. Austin State University (SFASU) began in this period of reform. While much of the criticism was being waged against principal preparation programs in the 90s, educational leadership doctoral programs were also targets of the attacks and, in turn, responded to the criticisms by enacting new forms of delivery such as cohort grouping, content focused upon problems of practice and issues of social justice and design features of multiple forms of assessment, such as, portfolio assessment. In the 90s, the Danforth Foundation funded reform efforts of leadership preparation programs on both the masters and doctoral levels, and many of these institutions were highlighted in the books entitled The Landscape of Leadership Preparation: Reframing the Educational of School Administrators (Murphy, 1992) and Preparing Tomorrow’s School Leaders: Alternative Designs (Murphy, 1993). These changes included new forms of delivery, instruction, curriculum, and assessment.

In 1997, as we began the Educational Leadership Doctoral Program at Stephen F. Austin State University (SFASU), recommendations for improvement of doctoral programs were paramount in the literature. Problem based learning, inclusion of discussion of research early in the program as a thread throughout, and a cohort design were explained in narrative accounts of innovative programs. In planning for our doctoral program, faculty members interviewed individuals from Danforth participants and considered design and delivery features that could strengthen our program. We met with practitioners and heard the call for rigor. We listened to presenters at the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration and were particularly influenced by the design of the doctoral program at University of Colorado at Denver. Later, we invited Rod Muth of University of Denver to visit our program as an outside reviewer prior to the process of review that was required by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. Ideas we incorporated into the program were an early emphasis on research at the beginning of the program and an integral thread throughout rather than a research sequence toward the end, synthesis classes with a portfolio process of assessment rather than a traditional comprehensive exam, the development of a theme throughout the program reflective of our core beliefs, an emphasis on dialogue and reflection as critical components of course delivery, a cohort design with sequenced courses, and internships linking the students’goals with experiential learning opportunities.