Joint CSU/UC Ed.D. Board: Summary of Activities

JOINT Ed.D BOARD - SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES

December 21, 2001 - Los Angeles
At this first meeting, the Board reviewed the November 5, 2001 agreement, the charge to Board, and the existing and proposed programs. The Board discussed regional needs assessment strategies and heard a report on three regional meetings sponsored by UC. The Board also discussed strategies for consultation with K-12 and community college leaders. The Board adopted a three-stage funding approach for planning, development, and implementation of program proposals and asked a subcommittee of the board to meet to draft an RFP. The Board agreed that the CSU faculty should have a role in program review. CSU was to decide how the CSU representative(s) would be selected, and CCGA was to be asked for its concurrence with the new review mechanism.

January 30, 2002 - Oakland - Consultation with K-12 Leaders
K-12 leaders were invited to meet with the Board to discuss their needs and concerns. The following people attended:

Scott Hill - Chief Deputy Superintendent of Public Instruction, California Department of Education (for Delaine Eastin)
Holly Jacobson - Assistant Executive Director, California School Boards Association (for Scott Plotkin)
John B. Mockler - Executive Director, California State Board of Education
Glen Thomas - California County Superintendents Educational Services Association
Linda Wisher - Association of California School Administrators (for Bob Wells) Warren Fox - Executive Director, CPEC

Kerry Mazzoni, Secretary for Education, was also invited but unable to attend.

All agreed that there is a need for high quality, rigorous, affordable Ed.D. degree programs, and for professional development of all kinds for educators. Education has been one of the least professionalized of the professions. Research skills are important, especially the ability to understand research and apply the findings as needed. It is also important that the degree be rooted in the world of work. Essential skills and abilities and desired core courses were suggested, and inclusion of expertise from other disciplines such as business and law was thought to be beneficial.

January 31, 2002 - Oakland - Consultation with Community College Leaders
Community College leaders were invited to meet with the Board to discuss their needs and concerns. The following people attended:

Hoke Simpson - President, Academic Senate for the California Community Colleges
David Wolf - Community College Leadership Development Institute (CCLDI) (former Executive Director, Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges, WASC)
Diane Woodruff - Director of State Policy, Community College League of California (for David Viar)

Also invited but not able to attend were Constance Carroll, CCLDI; Tom Nussbaum, Chancellor, California Community Colleges.

Guests noted that community college leadership is in crisis with high rates of turnover and a declining pool from which to draw future leaders. They emphasized the need for specific training for community college leadership, and stressed a preference for distinct programs, separate from those oriented to K-12 leadership. Community colleges need advanced programs to prepare leaders to face the distinctive mission and challenges of the community college sector. If that is not possible, the next best plan is for a separate community college track after initial common core courses. There is interest among community college administrators in obtaining this degree, and the community colleges can be helpful in designing the Ed.D. programs.

After the consultation, the Board reviewed and amended the draft RFP. The Board continued consideration of options for assessing regional needs. Attention was also drawn to the need for more programs in Special Education.

February 21, 2002 - Sacramento
At this meeting, the Board finalized the RFP. The Board also noted that some changes would need to be made to the Handbook for Creation of a Joint CSU/UC Degree to accommodate the new features of the joint Ed.D. programs and directed staff to make these changes. Board members agreed to excuse themselves from any discussion of proposals involving their home campuses. There was further discussion of regional needs assessment and consideration of possible future regional meetings.

March 14, 2002 - RFP issued, with quarterly deadlines

May 9, 2002 - Los Angeles
The Board approved some principles for the award of funding:

funding will be allotted per degree program;
the maximum award for a planning grant will be $30,000;
development grants will be based on the complexity of the curriculum and the number of campuses involved:
- $150,000 - a baseline amount for a two-campus, single strand program.
- Additional $50,000 for an additional campus or additional curricular strand ($200,000 total).
- $250,000 for more complex programs (i.e., normally the maximum development grant amount).
- A very small program with low enrollment will receive $100,000.
Implementation grants will be based on projected steady-state enrollment, multiplied by the approximate marginal cost, ~$9,000. Implementation funds will be awarded once the program has been approved and is ready to enroll students.

The Board made the first awards as follows:

*Planning:*		Ed.D. in Educational Leadership - UC San Diego, San Diego State University, CSU San Marcos: $30,000

Development:		Ed.D. in Educational Leadership - UC Irvine, Cal Poly Pomona, CSU Fullerton, CSU Long Beach, and CSU Los Angeles: $325,000. (Additional funding provided for instructional technology equipment for educational and administrative purposes.)
		Ed.D. in Collaborative Leadership for Teaching and Learning - UC Santa Cruz, San José State University: $150,000

		The Board requested some clarification of certain points from both the UCI/Cal Poly Pomona/ CSULB/CSULA/CSU Fullerton and the UCSC/SJSU teams.

Implementation:		Ed.D. in Urban Educational Leadership - UC Berkeley, CSU Hayward, San Francisco State University, San José State University: $405,000 over two years.

July 26, 2002 - Oakland
The Board awarded the following grants:

*Planning:*		Ed.D. in Educational Leadership (K-12 and Community College options) - UC Davis, CSU Sacramento, Sonoma State University: $30,000
		Ed.D. in Mathematics and Science Education - UC Merced, CSU Stanislaus: $30,000

		An application for a planning grant from CSU Bakersfield to become part of the UC Santa Barbara/Cal Poly San Luis Obispo program was sent back for further consideration by all partners.

*Development:*		Ed.D. in Educational Leadership - UC San Diego, San Diego State University, CSU San Marcos: $200,000

		The existing UC Davis/CSU Joint Doctoral Program in Educational Leadership (JDPEL) submitted a development grant proposal to double enrollments and create separate K-12 and community college tracks. The Board asked the program to answer some specific questions about how the program would be modified to conform to the new Ed.D. model.
		An application for a development grant from UC Riverside and CSU campuses at Dominguez Hills, San Bernardino, Long Beach and Los Angeles was returned to the partners with a request for further information.

*Implementation:*		Ed.D. in Educational Leadership - UC Santa Barbara, Cal Poly San Luis Obispo: $342,000 over two years

The Board reviewed and accepted the responses to its questions which had been submitted by UCI/Cal Poly Pomona/CSULB/CSULA/CSU Fullerton and by UCSC/SJSU, and endorsed the awards.

October 28, 2002 - Los Angeles
The Board awarded the following grants:

*Development:*		Ed.D. in Urban Educational Leadership - UC Berkeley, CSU Hayward, San Francisco State University, San José State University: $31,500 (This award responded to an unusual circumstance in which the program needed some assistance in bridging the gap between completing the approval process for the academic program proposal and enrolling students.)
		Ed.D. in Educational Leadership - UC Davis, CSU Sacramento, Sonoma State University: $200,000

The Boards revisited the CCGA process and clarified the role of the CSU reviewer and how that person is to be selected. The Board also discussed responses to questions asked of various partnerships at the last meeting. Further consultation with the UC Davis/CSU Fresno program proposers was recommended. The responses from the UC Santa Barbara/Cal Poly San Luis Obispo team were accepted and the award endorsed.

The Board agreed that it was time to talk again with K-12 and community college leaders, to provide a progress report and ask for further input about the direction of the programs. Representatives of these groups will be invited to meet with the Board in January 2003. The Board will develop an approach to regional needs assessments, including the identification of needs in specific program areas. SCR 93, which memorializes the agreement between CSU and UC, also asks for consultation with the independent institutions, which will be addressed.

The Board agreed that summaries of Board actions should be made available to interested parties.