Affirming Core Principles and Key Characteristics of Policy
for Independent EdD Programs in the CSU System
AS-2748-06/AA/TEKR - May 4-5, 2006
ATTACHMENT TO AS-2748-06/AA/TEKR (.pdf 35KB)
RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State
University (CSU) support the development, review and approval of independent EdD
programs in the CSU system in keeping with the core principles and key characteristics
of policy specified in the Report of the Academic Senate CSU Ed.D. Policy Work
Group; and be it further
RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU, affirm the following
core principles for planning and offering independent doctoral programs in the
RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU, recognize the attached
elements of policy for independent doctoral programs and encourages campuses to build
upon the system guidelines to develop campus specific additions in the following areas:
core education leadership concepts; examinations and dissertations; candidate admission
criteria; candidate time limits; faculty qualifications; candidate advising; governance
structure; and a CSU faculty consultation group, and be it further
- high levels of quality and traditional doctoral program expectations;
- appropriate flexibility in adoption of implementation details at the campus level;
- distinctions between roles/qualifications of core doctoral faculty and affiliated faculty;
- ASCSU-appointed faculty review at the systemwide level; and
- support for partnerships with P-12 Schools and Community Colleges; and be it further
RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU, urge all deliberate speed in
moving these core principles and key characteristics of policy forward so that independent
doctoral programs in the CSU system may commence in fall 2007; and be it further
RESOLVED: That copies of this resolution be distributed to the CSU Board
of Trustees, the Chancellor, the Executive Vice Chancellor of Academic Affairs; local
campus Presidents, Provosts, Deans of Education and Graduate Studies, and Senates.
RATIONALE: The California Postsecondary Education Commission (CPEC) (2000 Report) and California legislators (SB 713 and SB 724) have cited a need for educating school administrators and Community College teachers and administrators at the level of the doctorate of education. As the system of public higher education with a highly qualified faculty that educates and certifies most of California's teachers, the California State University (CSU), with its 23 campuses across the State, is well positioned to provide Ed.D. programs of high quality and at a reasonable cost to students. The structure and content of such programs must be determined and approved by CSU faculty. The degree programs must have sufficient flexibility to ensure the scholarly development of a broad range of educational leaders.
In September 2001, the Academic Senate CSU endorsed "The California State University at the Beginning of the 21st Century: Meeting the Needs of the People of California." This report supported a set of recommendations on graduate education in the CSU; the intention of the recommendations was, in part, to set minimal standards for programs and, in part, to seek additional funding to permit upgrading of programs.
In September 2004, the Academic Senate CSU endorsed the report of the Task Force on Graduate and Postbaccalaureate Education in the CSU entitled "Rethinking Graduate Education in the CSU: Meeting the Needs of the People of California for Graduate Education for the 21st Century." Included in the report's recommendations regarding Doctoral Education were several germane to this resolution. The report affirmed support for the CSU seeking legislative authorization to offer doctoral programs in "applied fields and the education of advanced-level practitioners," independent of other universities, when 1) "the need for publicly supported doctoral programs in one of more selected fields is well established," 2) the UC does not respond by developing programs to match the need, 3) "the faculty at one or more CSU campuses has the expertise to offer the programs," and, 4) adequate funding is made available.
Approved - May 4-5, 2006