Providing Advice and Guidance to the Development of California State University (CSU) Professional Doctorate and Ed.D. Programs

AS-3037-11/AA/APEP (Rev)

ATTACHMENT TO AS-3037-11/AA/APEP (Rev)

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU (ASCSU) support the use of its standing committees to provide advice and guidance as needed for professional doctorate programs; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the ASCSU support the use of the Academic Preparation and Education Programs
Committee to provide advice and guidance for independent Doctorate of Education (Ed.D.) programs and the Academic Affairs Committee to provide advice and guidance for the Doctorate of Nursing Practice (DNP) and Professional Doctorate in Physical Therapy (DPT) and future doctoral degrees; and be it further

RESOLVED: That the ASCSU, consistent with its bylaws, reaffirm the role and commitment of APEP
to monitor and guide Ed.D. developments and advisory processes.

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of the California State University (ASCSU) recommend the
elimination of the Education Doctoral Advisory Committee and the Education Doctoral Program Review Committee and further be it,

RESOLVED: That the ASCSU reaffirm its commitment to the current practice of having an annual
meeting of the “Education Doctoral Advisory Board”; and further be it,

RESOLVED: That the ASCSU begin the process of amending its bylaws to reflect this new role for
the Academic Affairs committee.

RESOLVED: That the ASCSU distribute this resolution to the CSU Board of Trustees, CSU Chancellor, CSU campus Presidents, CSU campus Senate Chairs, CSU campus Provosts/Vice Presidents of Academic Affairs, College of Education Deans, and Directors of Ed.D. programs

RATIONALE: The ASCSU has the expertise in the AA and APEP committees to provide guidance for the continued development of the DNP, and DPT doctoral programs as they move through development and implementation. The professional doctoral programs (DNP and DPT) are located administratively in Academic Affairs while Ed.D. programs are located in Academic Preparation and Education Programs (with a nomenclature and charge that replaced the former Teacher Education and K-12 Relations [TEKR] committee). Placing guidance and advisory activities within the scope of these standing committees does not add to the current ASCSU committee structure and appears to be an efficient means of achieving appropriate guidance and advising roles. Use of the standing committees will allow for flexibility in the creation of subcommittees and task forces as needed to provide advising and guidance for any systemwide doctoral program review activities.

The charge of the APEP committee (see ASCSU bylaws: www.calstate.edu/acadsen/records/about_the_senate/bylaws.pdf ) includes “programs in the CSU that provide for the professional development of school teachers, administrators and counselors,” specifically “Educational Doctorate Programs,” and “State legislation having the potential impact on the CSU responsibility to educate school personnel.” Thus, changes to, or concerns regarding, statewide requirements for awarding Ed.D. degrees belongs within the purview of the APEP committee of the statewide academic senate of the CSU. No such language exists regarding professional doctorates for the Academic Affairs Committee.

When the Ed.D. programs were first being developed, as the first professional doctorate degrees within the CSU, it made sense to have a strong formal structure to ensure the development of high quality academically rigorous programs (in 2007, a resolution,
AS-2793-07/TEKR (Rev), was passed by the ASCSU in support of the establishment of a CSU Doctorate in Education Advisory Committee, More recent professional doctorate program development has used a similar model as originally adopted for the Ed.D. with senate involvement and membership for various degree program development groups. At this point, new Ed.D. programs will rely on input from existing programs across the CSU, capped by statewide CSU level review consistent with established practice (involving assent of APEP for membership and/or review processes). The appropriate role of APEP, as for many statewide committees, is to look outside the purview of local campus responsibilities, restricting itself to issues of statewide concern.

Approved Without Dissent – November 3-4, 2011