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