PROGRAM REVIEW SELF-STUDY
Title of Degree Program: 13.0401 Ed.D. Educational Administration and Supervision
Majors listed under the degree: Educational Administration and Supervision
Specialization areas include: None
Minors listed under the degree: None
Program Leader: Dr. Peter J. Cistone
Program Faculty:
- Dr. Peter J. Cistone.
Part I: Overview
1. What goals did you develop as a result of your last program review?
a. Consistent with the conceptual framework of the College of Education (COE), the Ed.D. program in Educational Administration and Supervision has pursued the following goals: (a) ensuring the program offer a curriculum that reflects sound theory and practice, (b) enrolling students that represent diverse backgrounds and are highly qualified, (c) hiring faculty members that are qualified, active, and highly regarded in their respective professional fields, and (d) ensuring the program is relevant to and engaged with schools and other educational organizations in the service region.
2. What are your major accomplishments tied to these goals? Are there other significant accomplishments that you reached as a result of continuous quality improvement and your ability to capture emerging trends, needs, and opportunities?
a. Reinforcing the university-level commitment to the development of school and district leaders are programs and projects in the COE that are intended to foster school improvement through collaboration with schools. In one such project, the program faculty collaborated with the Miami-Dade County Public Schools (M-DCPS) in offering a doctoral program (Ed.D.) in Educational Administration responsive to the professional development needs of the school district. Fully funded by the school system ($243,750), students were co-selected by FIU faculty and M-DCPS senior administrators. In summer 2010, a federally-funded doctoral cohort program was initiated with the purpose of providing ten (10) Hispanic school administrators with the opportunity to pursue a doctorate in Educational Administration through the Creating Latino Access to a Valuable Education [CLAVE] grant.
b. Effective January 2009, the Florida Department of Education (FDOE) promulgated new rules, standards, and program approval requirements for university-based programs in Educational Leadership. Several courses common to both the master’s and doctoral level programs were either newly developed or extensively revised in response to the new state standards.
Part II: Program Analysis
3. What is the vision of your program(s)? Your mission?
a. The program follows the vision and mission of the COE Conceptual Framework. In addition, the Doctor of Education (Ed.D.) degree program is a constituent program within the Educational Administration/Leadership program area in the COE, Department of Leadership and Professional Studies. Consistent with the conceptual framework of the College of Education, the overall mission of the Educational Administration/Leadership program is to develop educational leaders who are professionally prepared and empowered through knowledge, skills, and dispositions to create and sustain effective educational institutions as successful and socially just teaching and learning environments. Within this framework of visualization, accomplished educational leadership constitutes the moral and ethical application of experiential, empirical (research), and theoretical knowledge and expert skills to the problems of educational practice in a manner and style that is democratic, facilitative, and collaborative. Specifically, the Ed.D. program reflects the College’s conceptual framework and the program’s mission and is designed to provide professional educators with advanced graduate study that is grounded in theory, research, and best practices. The program of study is multidisciplinary and integrates broad intellectual perspectives. The program’s mission is (a) to prepare educational leaders who have advanced knowledge, abilities, and dispositions to enhance learning, management, and development within diverse settings; (b) to discover, disseminate, and apply knowledge and information to the problems of educational practice; and (c) to develop professional partnerships and inter-institutional collaboration that promote meaningful educational, social, economic, and political change.
4. Programmatic Information:
a. Location(s) where degree is offered: Modesto Maidique Campus.
b. Delivery format(s): Face to face; Online courses are offered occasionally.
c. Enrollment data: See chart below.
Headcount / Fall 2004 / Fall 2005 / Fall 2006 / Fall 2007 / Fall 2008 / Fall 2009 / Fall 2010Ed.D. Educational Administration and Supervision / 25 / 22 / 18 / 12 / 9 / 9 / 11
d. Retention and graduation rates: See chart below.
Degrees Awarded / 2004-05 / 2005-06 / 2006-07 / 2007-08 / 2008-09 / 2009-10 / 2010-11Ed.D. Educational Administration and Supervision / 5 / 3 / 3 / 1 / 3 / 1 / 0
e. Placement of graduates: Approximately ninety percent (90%) of program graduates are employed in the public schools in the service region. The remaining graduates are employed in private schools or in other education-related organizations and facilities in the service region.
f. Percentage of graduates proceeding to graduate or professional schools: The Ed.D. degree is a terminal degree in the field.
g. Diversity profile of students: See chart below.
Diversity / 2004-05 / 2005-06 / 2006-07 / 2007-08 / 2008-09 / 2009-10 / 2010-11Total # of Students / 25 / 22 / 18 / 12 / 9 / 9 / 11
American Indian / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0
Asian / 0 / 1 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0
Black / 6 / 4 / 3 / 3 / 1 / 1 / 4
Hispanic / 5 / 8 / 7 / 4 / 3 / 3 / 2
White / 13 / 9 / 7 / 5 / 5 / 5 / 5
Multi-racial / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0
Not Specified / 1 / 0 / 1 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0
University Core Curriculum delivered (if applicable). Not applicable.
5. Student learning outcomes matrix (i.e., student learning outcomes stated in measurable terms; assessment methods [criteria and procedures for evaluation]; results of data summary and analysis; and, use of results for improving student learning) for the last two years (2008-09 and 2009-10). Use of results could include, for example, curriculum reform.
a. See attached SLO Assessment Reports.
6. Program performance outcomes matrix (i.e., program outcomes stated in measurable terms; assessment criteria and procedures for evaluation; results of data summary and analysis; and, use of results for improving the program.)
a. See attached PO Assessment Reports. (APA will provide).
Provide focused synthesis and analysis of the above segments.
- Regular and adjunct faculty reviewed the various facets of the program in connection with the FDOE program and the NCATE accreditation review.
- With respect to Student Learning Outcomes:
o The Doctoral Candidacy/Comprehensive Examination has undergone a revision to affect a more reliable and valid demonstration and assessment of the capacity of students to integrate and synthesize knowledge in the field.
o The process of developing and defending the doctoral dissertation proposal has been streamlined and has benefited from the leadership of COE’s Office of Graduate Studies.
- With respect to Program Outcomes:
o The faculty offering courses in the program attained the desired level of achievement in that the faculty all received an overall Instructor Evaluation rating of Excellent or Very Good.
o The program leader has consulted with adjunct faculty to ensure that the goals and objectives of the program are being reflected in their course offerings.
Contextual Program Information:
7. List recommendations from the last program review and actions taken in response to recommendations.
a. With respect to some of those recommendations directly related to the program:
i. There is a concerted effort to reduce the amount of time to degree completion. With the start-up of a new group of cohorts in the program, this goal is particularly salient.
ii. There have been several unsuccessful attempts to hire new tenure earning faculty in the program. The commitment to recruiting and appointing new faculty continues. Two searches will be conducted in the fall 2011 to hire a tenure earning assistant professor and an associate/full professor to support doctoral student academic programming.
iii. FIU’s Ed.D. program in Educational Administration is generally regarded as the most demanding and rigorous of any Educational Administration program in the region. This reputation probably reduces applications slightly, but at the same time, it serves to enhance the credibility of the program and the stature of its program graduates.
8. Summarize results/recommendations of any specialized accreditation, including date of review.
a. The program has not undergone any specialized accreditation reviews.
9. Describe major changes in the Program as a result of changes in discipline, student demand, faculty feedback and labor dynamics.
a. The sequence of research methodology courses for the Ed.D. program has been revised. The revised course sequence is:
i. EDF 5481: Foundations of Educational Research;
ii. EDF 6472: Research Methods in Education: Introduction to Data Analysis;
iii. EDF 6486: Advanced Data Analysis in Quantitative Educational Research; and
iv. EDF 6475: Qualitative Foundations of Educational Research OR EDF 7403: Data Analysis in Mutivariate Educational Research.
b. EDA 7288: Politics of Education now requires a field-experience in a political campaign at the state or national level and a reflective journal that documents and analyzes the events and experiences of the campaign.
c. EDA 7233: Ethics and Educational Leadership represents a change in course title and content from the previous EDA 7233: Law and Ethics. The current course emphasizes the practical application of contrasting philosophical and ethical concepts to administrative issues and problems.
i. With respect to the FDOE program approval noted in the previous section, among other features, FIU’s revised M.S. in Educational Leadership program incorporates an enhanced emphasis on competency- and performance-based evaluation, an Instructional Leadership course that focuses on data-driven instructional systems, and a semester-long administrative internship.
10. Demonstrate need for the Program and benefit to the University, region, State, and global community, as applicable.
a. It is within the context of increasing social, economic, and political complexity and accelerating change that school administrators will have to function now and in the future. While the competent management of schools and school systems will continue to be essential and valued, a more dynamic and astute form of educational, civic, and political leadership will be required of educational leaders in the new millennium.
b. Today there is an “added urgency,” in the view of the Southern Regional Education Board. School systems across the nation are faced with varying and significant administrator shortages. Principals, superintendents, and other school administrators are retiring and resigning from education in unprecedented numbers. The United States Bureau of Labor Statistics (2010-11) projects an overall 10 to 20 percent increase in school administrator job vacancies. The aging of the administrator cohort, attractive early retirement inducements, and an undersupply of qualified educators pursuing administrator positions are factors expected to protract the period of shortage.
c. Locally, significant attrition in the administrator ranks of the M-DCPS began to occur as early as the year 2003. Hundreds of other administrators are also expected to retire or resign over the next five to eight years.
d. The environment for university-based doctoral programs in educational administration in southeast Florida is moderately competitive, with FIU, Barry University, and Nova Southeastern University being the principal institutional players. Clearly, FIU’s Educational Administration program enjoys a distinct advantage over the programs offered by those institutions because of the widespread perception that the FIU program offers a high-quality education at cost-effective rates – a good value for one’s education dollar. Moreover, it is generally recognized in the regional professional education community that FIU’s Educational Administration program is the preferred choice of strong students who value rigorous standards and are motivated by high expectations.
e. The environmental circumstances and conditions highlighted above create unusual demands as well as exceptional opportunities for FIU’s Educational Administration program. Defining the best practices of educational leadership in emerging school settings, identifying and enhancing the knowledge and skills essential to effective practice, and conjoining theory and practice in the interest of preparing high-performing educational leaders is the framework for the further development of FIU’s doctoral program in Educational Administration.
Fiscal Analysis:
11. The Fiscal Analysis will be enacted through a process between the Office of Academic Budget and Personnelin the Division of Academic Affairs and the dean of the College of Education.
Research Productivity (as applicable):
12a. Grant Support: Please analyze tenured and tenured-earning faculty productivity in the last three years in terms of grant support, including the following: number of proposals submitted; number of submitters; total funds requested; average per proposal; number of proposals funded; and, total amount funded. (Please provide the information by fiscal year.) You can also provide the analysis on non-tenured and non-tenured earning faculty. Analysis on clinical grants, as applicable, can be included.
Grants and AwardsFaculty / Year(s) / Total Amount Funded
Cistone / 2000-2005 / $243,750
- P. J. Cistone (Principal Investigator), FIU/Miami-Dade County Public Schools Doctoral Program in Educational Administration, 2000-2005 (Program Funded by Miami-Dade County Public Schools). Level of Funding: $243,750.
o This training grant offered a program of studies leading to the degree of Doctor of Education (Ed.D.) in Educational Administration to a targeted cohort of high-performing school administrators co-selected by the University and the school system.
12b. Publications: Please provide the number of publications in peer reviewed journals and/or student-run publications produced in the last three years, including the number of papers per faculty. (Please provide the information by fiscal year.)
Faculty Publications for 2004-2008Faculty / 2004 / 2005 / 2006 / 2007 / 2008 / Total
Cistone / 1 / 0 / 1 / 0 / 1 / 3
Publications for 2004
- Cistone, P. J., & Shneyderman, A. (2004). Looping: An empirical evaluation. International Journal of Educational Policy, Research, and Practice, 5, 47-61.
Publications for 2006
- Cistone, P. J. (2006). School boards. In F. W. English (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Educational Leadership and Administration. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Publications for 2008