 |
|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
Who Needs an Ed.D.?
Wednesday, September 21, at 1 p.m., U.S. Eastern time
In "Educating School Leaders," a scathing report released in March, Arthur Levine announced that education schools were broken and that he had a plan to fix them. Doctorates in education should be eliminated, he said, and replaced with a master's degree that would combine training in management with training in education. He called on states to close weak programs and urged colleges to stop using their education schools as "cash cows" for other, higher-priority programs.
If reform does not come soon, Mr. Levine warned, states, school districts, and for-profit institutions will create alternative programs.
Critics say that the problems with education schools are well known and that Mr. Levine's recommendations will not solve them. School administrators like the cachet of a doctoral degree, they say, and school boards are not likely to stop looking for job candidates who have one. And as long as teachers are rewarded for taking additional courses, universities will give in to the temptation to offer easy ones.
How can colleges better train future school administrators? Must school districts change their reward system first? Should it be more difficult for an institution to create an education program?
» The Ed.D. -- Who Needs It? (9/23/2005)
» Change in the Principal's Office: the Role of Universities (4/15/2005)
Arthur Levine has been president of Columbia University's Teachers College for 12 years and will step down at the end of this academic year. From 1989 to 1994 he was chairman of Harvard University's graduate program in higher education.
Jennifer Jacobson (Moderator):
Welcome to The Chronicle's chat about the Ed.D. Please welcome Arthur Levine, the president of Columbia's Teachers College, who has called on education schools to do away with the degree.
Arthur Levine:
I'm pleased to be with you
Jennifer Jacobson (Moderator):
Mr. Levine announced his resignation, effective at the end of this academic year, from Teachers College last week, to spend more time on his reform of education schools. His next report on the topic will be published in November, followed by one in the spring of 2006. A book will follow soon after.
Question from Edith Rusch University of Nevada Las Vegas:
In what way does individual state administrative licensing requriements play into this critique?
I contend that state regulations sustain weak programs with inadequate or inappropriate knowledge and skill expectations for school administrators. In many states, approved programs merely have to demonstate coursework in 4 or 5 generic categories to be an approved program, which in turn, leads to a multitude of weak, but approved, programs. While many states have endorsed higher standards (ISSLC) and accreditation, they still sanction programs that do not meet these standards.
Arthur Levine:
I couldn't agree more. The states have the capacity to improve this situation and only a few are using it.
Question from Anonymous:
It is very clear to me that the decline in our country's education "system" is due to the inappropriate and misguided decisions being made by our educational and policital "leadership[?]". My question is, "How can we educators implement a change in our educational system so that the administrators are held accountable for their poor policy decisions"?
-[anonymity requested]
Arthur Levine:
I don't think any decline in our education system can be laid at the feet of one group. Our system has been buffeted by profound demographic, economic, technological and global changes. It no longer fits the society in which we live. I think we need quality educators to create and lead a system that will.
Question from Kris Grabarek, MIT:
Just as an "ideal" teacher could be defined as someone who has content expertise, pedagogical skills, and the ability to connect with students, a school administrator also is a combination of skill-sets. Administrators are a combination of teacher (and all that this entails), manager, and leader. The question is how do we train and employ administrators who have strengths in all of those areas? Can one size fits all model (the MBA proposal Mr. Levine proposes) replace another one size fits all model (the Ed.D degree) successfully? The business manager who lacks pedagogical knowledge needs a different form of training than the teacher who lacks managerial experience. How can our training programs successfully accommodate these different needs?
Arthur Levine:
My criticism of the Ed.D is not that it is a one size fits all model, but that it is inappropriate training in research for a person whose job will be administration. In talking about an MBA type of degree, I speak of the need to create a course of studies focusing on education and on leadership. I suspect such programs would vary over time and by school system, but the common ingredient is that they would offer a program designed specifically for the job of being a school leader.
Question from Weldon Beckner, Baylor University:
Criticisms and generalizations about improvement are relatively easy to make, and most of Mr. Levine's comments and suggestions are valid. However, other than doing away with the Ed.D. he doesn't give much help about just how programs should be changed. What specific changes in selection of candidates, program content, program organization and delivery, program/student support and the like are considered necessary?
Arthur Levine:
I thought I discussed what programs should look like when I described the rigorous two year masters progrm I would replace the EDD with. I hoped I had given insight into the elements of a successful program when I discussed the National College for School Leadership in Britain as a model. Finally I planned to give some counsel on this in offering a template on program quality and employing it throughout the report
Question from Alan Lesgold, University of Pittsburgh:
While the change to a master's degree as the terminal professional degree seems sensible, has any such change ever worked. I see lawyers getting J.D.'s and pharmacists getting Pharm.D.'s, but I see no cases of transition in the other direction. Doesn't it make more sense to improve the Ed.D. degree and make it purely a terminal professional degree?
Arthur Levine:
The difficulty for me is that the Ed.D. course of studies is disconnected from the needs of a school leader. It should not be necessary to study research methods, go to school for at least three years, and write a dissertation to head a school district. The interesting thing to me is that any state could force the change by requiring the MEA i proposed for certification. At that point the universities would follow suit.
Question from Anthony H. Normore, Florida International University:
My question focuses on admission standards for Ed.D programs: What might "different" standards look like and how might they evolve/change in order to ensure professors of Educational Leadership programs are admitting appropriate graduate students? Should individuals, other than those responsible for delivering these programs, be responsible for admission? Perhaps personnel in school districts could participate in the interview process and make recommendations accordingly. If so, how might these personnel be chosen? Thank you.
Arthur Levine:
The first step for me is eliminating those students who have no intention of ever becoming school administrators. Because all 50 states give salary increases to teachers for earning masters degrees and the educational administration degree has a reputation as being the easiest to secure, there are many unmotivated students less interested in knowledge than money in educational leadership programs. So my candidate for improving admissions quality is to tie teacher salary increases to masters degrees that update, deepen or extend their knowledge and skills in the area they teach. They would only receive a salary bump when for an ed ad masters when they enter an leadership job.
Question from Carolyn Pearson, U. of Arkansas Little Rock:
Dr. Levine
What is the primary reason your critics have given you not to replace the Ed.D. with a masters?
Arthur Levine:
There are many reasons offered, but the reality is that students want it, school districts seek it, universities have goood enrollments in the area, and aspiring univiersities are most likely to gain authority to offer doctorates in this area.
Question from Barbara Stengel, Millersville University:
Mr. Levine
I found much to applaud in the report (e.g. that a doctorate may not be the right terminal degree for school leaders, that carefully planned practical experiences ought to be central parts of any program, that a balance of theory and practice is critical, that what might be called a moral focus matters, that ed leadership doctorates are really university cash cows, etc.) but was worried that the report painted all leadership preparation programs with a broad brush. I do understand that you cited promising programs, but the impact of the report is still to dismiss those not cited (I believe our program is one example) who have gone to a coordinated, cohort-based, field situated, data-based masters level programs that incorporate the same leadership and management theory/principles/research being considered in industry and government.
My sense is that ALL programs for school leaders are at risk of being dismissed by those skeptical of anything that says "education", fueled in part by the strong language of the report.
Does this concern you?
Arthur Levine:
Woops I just lost a long answer to this question. I will be more abrupt. I tried to make the case in the report that there were strong programs and I had seen only some of what exists around the country. But my big fear is that the findings reported in my study, previous studies and future studies will be ignored. I fear if that happens, the lot of educating school leaders will by given to non-university providers, many for-profit. I think that would be a tragic loss.
Question from Annie Kearns, student, Indiana University:
Dr. Levine - I agree that the EdD probably is unnecessary for those in administration; however, as a researcher, I find it extremely important for those "on the ground" to have an appreciation for research methodology and implications of research. Would the terminal master's degree incorporate any sort of research training (i.e. even learning how best to use research, if not how to conduct it) or would that be restricted to the EdD only?
Arthur Levine:
I agree with you and think this would be critical. We need school leaders who are prepared for data driven decision-making. I can't imagine a masters degree worth its salt that didn't do this.
Question from A. G. Rud, Purdue University:
Not all educational administrators get the EdD, some get a PhD as their "doctorate." And some institutions, Harvard and Rochester come immediately to mind, give the EdD to folks in fields other than P-12 ed administration. The soundbite of "EdD, who needs it?" immediately provokes defensive strategies by some. How does you propose to deal with such in a savvy and productive manner? (I teach in a college of ed and hold a PhD, not in education).
Arthur Levine:
I have a social science doctorate too. My point is just that the doctorate should be restricted for research preparation and not for preparation of practitioners. I would prefer that the Ph.D.'s be reserved for research, but if some schools give an Ed.D. instead that is not the end of the world. When I speak of eliminating the Ed.D. for practitioners, this is not a commentary on the quality of the practitioners or even a commentary on the quality of the doctoral program. It is a commentary instead on the unsuitability of the doctoral program for careers in leadership.
Jennifer Jacobson (Moderator):
Thank you for your time, President Levine. I'm sorry we couldn't get to all of today's questions. Thanks again for participating.