BAKER UNIVERSITY School of Education

DOCTOR OF EDUCATION IN EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP

POLICY AND PROGRAMS HANDBOOK

School of Education Mission The Baker University School of Education is committed to learning and to developing confident and competent educational leaders. School of Education Beliefs The SOE believes a confident and competent educational leader 1. Advocates for all students and their learning successes; 2. Has a strong knowledge base and sense of beliefs and values supported by educational

research and best practices; 3. Has the commitment and skills to transfer knowledge, beliefs, and values into policy and

practice; 4. Demonstrates interpersonal practices that advance the welfare and dignity of all persons; and 5. Maintains an unremitting drive for improvement. School of Education Vision The Baker University School of Education provides quality programs grounded in a tradition of academic excellence and responds to the educational needs of the future.

August 2009

Copyright © 2009 by Baker University School of Education

2

BAKER UNIVERSITY DOCTOR OF EDUCATION IN EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP

POLICY AND PROGRAMS HANDBOOK

Table of Contents

School of Education Statement of Mission, Beliefs, and Vision…..…………….....…cover page Baker University Statement of Vision........................................................................................... 4 Baker University Statement of Mission ....................................................................................... 4 Section I: Conceptual Framework .......................................................................................... 5 Program Mission .................................................................................................... 6 Essential Characteristics........................................................................................ 6 Program Objectives................................................................................................ 7 SOE Commitments................................................................................................. 8 Evaluation Process ................................................................................................. 9 Section II: Governance............................................................................................................. 10 Section III: Assessment Plans ................................................................................................... 13 Program Options .................................................................................................. 13 Program Progress................................................................................................. 14 Program Graduation Requirements................................................................... 14 Program Probation............................................................................................... 14 Section IV: Curriculum (Educational Doctorate).................................................................. 15 Curriculum (District Leadership Licensure) ..................................................... 16 Continuous Enrollment Guidelines..................................................................... 17 Section V: Field Experience Requirements and Placement ................................................. 17 Section VI: Clinical Research Requirements ......................................................................... 19 Purpose.................................................................................................................. 19 Process ................................................................................................................... 19 Defense of the Clinical Research ......................................................................... 20 Clinical Research Study....................................................................................... 21 Clinical Research Study Guidelines (table)........................................................ 22 Section VII: Portfolio Requirements........................................................................................ 23 Program Portfolio................................................................................................. 23 Portfolio Content .................................................................................................. 23 Portfolio Defense................................................................................................... 23 Portfolio Defense Rubric...................................................................................... 24 Section VIII: Licensure Related Issues...................................................................................... 25 Kansas Licensure.................................................................................................. 25 Missouri Licensure ............................................................................................... 25 MSSL Adjusted Building Licensure (table) ....................................................... 26 Section IX: Program Advising................................................................................................ 28

3

Appendices ...................................................................................................................... 29 Appendix A: Supervisor’s Evaluation of Field Experiences...................................... 30 Appendix B: Administrator Mentor’s Evaluation of Field Experiences .................. 31 Appendix C: Candidate Reflection Form.................................................................... 32 Appendix D: Field Experience Contractual Agreement ............................................ 33 Appendix E: Instructor Ratings of Professional Skills .............................................. 34 Appendix F: Assessment of Program Objectives by Course .................................. ...35 Appendix G: Graduate’s Self Assessment of Skills ................................................. ...36 Appendix H: Employer-Supervisor Assessment of Graduate’s Skills ................... ...37 Appendix I: Required Experiences in Technology ................................................. ...38 Appendix J: Bibliography of Knowledge Base .......................................................... 39 All rights reserved. No part of this material may be reproduced, transmitted, or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Published by: Baker University School of Education, 8001 College Boulevard, Overland Park, Kansas 66210

4

BAKER UNIVERSITY

DOCTOR OF EDUCATION IN EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP POLICY AND PROGRAMS HANDBOOK

This Policy and Program Handbook serves as the official document of policies, programs, and operating procedures for Baker University’s Doctorate of Education (Ed.D.) in Educational Leadership. The policies and operating procedures stated in this document are the policies and procedures effective for Ed.D. candidates beginning August 2009.

BAKER UNIVERSITY STATEMENT OF VISION The Baker University School of Education provides quality programs grounded in a tradition of academic excellence and responds to the educational needs of the future.

BAKER UNIVERSITY STATEMENT OF MISSION Baker University is committed to assuring learning and developing confident, competent and responsible contributors to society. The Ed.D. program prepares candidates to become confident and competent educational leaders who promote learning for all participants. The program involves an in-depth study of leadership issues within the educational community. The Ed.D. program objectives set the expectations that confident and competent educational leaders must meet. An Ed.D. program candidate must: 1. Facilitate the development and implementation of a mission that focuses on enhancing the learning

community; 2. Advocate, nurture, and sustain a positive learning culture and effective instructional programs; 3. Develop effective management practices and resources that create a safe, efficient, and effective

learning environment; 4. Collaborate with families and diverse community members, mobilizing resources; 5. Act with integrity, fairness, and in an ethical manner; and 6. Understand, respond to, and influence the larger political, social, economic, and cultural community. The Doctorate of Education (Ed.D.) in Educational Leadership provides candidates with the opportunity to secure District Leadership Licensure (DLL).

5

SECTION I

The model of the School of Education (SOE) Conceptual Framework (CF) illustrates the dynamic and systematic process used to develop and sustain educational programs committed to learning and to the development of confident and competent educational leaders. The seven components of the model are encapsulated within two wheels. The larger first wheel contains the 1) Beliefs, 2) Program Objectives, 3) Essential Characteristics, and 4) Commitments. These components surround the 5) Mission, which is the hub of the wheel. The second wheel contains the 6) Vision. The two wheels are linked together by 7) the Evaluation Process. The larger wheel represents the basis on which SOE programs are built and the second wheel provides the basis for future growth. The evaluation process provides the evidence for determining how closely the vision supports and advances our mission.

6

Program Mission, Beliefs and Vision School of Education Mission The Baker University School of Education is committed to learning and to developing confident and competent educational leaders. School of Education Beliefs The SOE believes a confident and competent educational leader 1. Advocates for all students and their learning successes; 2. Has a strong knowledge base and sense of beliefs and values supported by educational research and

best practices; 3. Has the commitment and skills to transfer knowledge, beliefs, and values into policy and practice; 4. Demonstrates interpersonal practices that advance the welfare and dignity of all persons; and 5. Maintains an unremitting drive for improvement. School of Education Vision The Baker University School of Education provides quality programs grounded in a tradition of academic excellence and responds to the educational needs of the future. The SOE offers a life enhancing experience that promotes rigorous scholarship and integrates student learning, development, and engagement in ways that educate the whole person and inspire student success and fulfillment.

Essential Characteristics The University believes there are essential characteristics associated with confident and competent educational leaders. These characteristics are categorized in the professional skills and personal dispositions listed below. The candidate must bring a level of skills and dispositions to the Doctorate of Education (Ed.D.) in Educational Leadership program; however, these skills and dispositions are developed as a candidate proceeds through the program. To ensure that essential skills and dispositions are developed for all participants, the Ed.D. Program continuously monitors a candidate’s progress through multiple program assessments. Professional Skills Baker University believes an exemplary leader evinces the following four Professional Skills; therefore, the leadership candidate must demonstrate the following: 1. A strong educational knowledge base that aligns with research and/or best practices; 2. Written communication skills that enable the candidate to write ideas clearly, using appropriate

writing conventions, organization, and focus; 3. Oral communication skills that enable the candidate to clearly articulate oral comments and interact

with individuals and groups; 4. Professional responsibilities and organizational skills that enable the candidate to assume

responsibility for class assignments; class participation; class attendance; plan, schedule, and meet time lines; and

5. Problem solving and critical thinking skills that enable the candidate to think critically and solve problems.

7

Personal Dispositions Baker University believes that confident and competent educational leaders evince four personal dispositions; therefore, the leadership candidate must demonstrate the following: He or she believes 1. He or she is capable of positively influencing learning for all people; 2. All people are capable of learning at a high level; 3. The purpose of education is to assist all people to become competent and successful; and 4. Effective leadership and teaching are interpersonal processes where the individual’s attitudes, beliefs,

feelings, and welfare must be of prime consideration.

Ed.D. Program Objectives The Ed.D. program develops confident and competent leaders who can demonstrate the ability to promote success for all participants. The program focus is to develop educational leadership; thus the program has been aligned with the 2008 Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) standards and Kansas State Department of Education (KSDE) professional standards for district leadership licensure. The indicators identified under the following standards are program objectives which drive curriculum, instruction, candidate activities and learning, and program assessments. Standard 1: An education leader promotes the success of every student by facilitating the development, articulation, implementation, and stewardship of a vision of learning that is shared and supported by all stakeholders. The candidate

a) Collaboratively develops and implements a shared vision and mission; b) Collects and uses data to identify goals, assess organizational effectiveness, and promote organizational

learning; c) Creates and implements plans to achieve goals; d) Promotes continuous and sustainable improvement; e) Monitors and evaluates progress and revises plans; and f) Applies leadership beliefs, values, and behaviors into personal leadership positions, policy and practice that

impact student learning. Standard 2: An education leader promotes the success of every student by advocating, nurturing, and sustaining a school culture and instructional program conducive to student learning and staff professional growth. The candidate

a) Nurtures and sustains a culture of collaboration, trust, learning, and high expectations; b) Creates comprehensive, rigorous, coherent and research-based curricular and co-curricular programs; c) Creates personalized and motivating learning environments that meet the needs of all students; d) Supervises instruction; e) Develops assessment and accountability systems to monitor student progress; f) Develops the instructional and leadership capacities of staff through results-based professional

development opportunities; g) Maximizes time spent on quality instruction; h) Promotes the use of the most effective and appropriate technologies to support teaching and learning; and i) Monitors and evaluates the impact of the instructional program on learning.

8

Standard 3: An education leader promotes the success of every student by ensuring management of the organization, operation, and resources for a safe, efficient, and effective learning environment. The candidate

a) Monitors and evaluates the management and operational systems; b) Obtains, allocates, aligns, and efficiently utilizes human, fiscal, and technological resources through the use

of proactive management strategies; c) Promotes and protects the welfare and safety of students and staff; d) Develops the capacity for distributed leadership; e) Ensures teacher and organizational time is focused to support quality instruction and student learning; and f) Ensures that legal issues relating to policies, operations, human resource supervision and support systems

are effectively applied, protecting the rights and confidentiality of all persons. Standard 4: An education leader promotes the success of every student by collaborating with families and stakeholders, responding to diverse and special community interests and needs, and mobilizing community resources. The candidate

a) Collects, analyzes, and appropriately applies community data and pertinent information for improvement; b) Promotes understanding, appreciation, and use of the community’s diverse cultural, social, and intellectual

resources; c) Builds and sustains positive relationships with families and caregivers; d) Builds and sustains productive relationships with community partners; e) Develops effective communication and group process skills; and f) Effectively implements the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) (Section 504, and PL 94-142) to

provide services for handicapped and special needs populations. Standard 5: An education leader promotes the success of every student by acting with integrity, fairness, and in an ethical manner. The candidate

a) Ensures a system of accountability for every student’s academic and social success; b) Models principles of self-awareness, reflective practice, transparency, and ethical behavior, treating all

persons fairly, equitably, and with dignity; c) Safeguards the values of democracy, equity, and diversity; and d) Considers and evaluates the potential moral and legal consequences of decision-making.

Standard 6: An education leader promotes the success of every student by understanding, responding to, and influencing the political, social, economic, legal, and cultural context. The candidate

a) Advocates for children, families, and caregivers by maintaining communications with all members of a diverse community;

b) Acts to influence local, district, state, and national decisions affecting student learning; c) Assesses, analyzes, and anticipates emerging trends and initiatives in order to adapt leadership strategies;

and d) Understands and develops skills to work with governing boards in shaping policies and practices.

9

SOE Commitments A listing of sixteen unit Commitments has been developed to increase the probability that all candidates are “committed to learning and the development of confident, competent educational leaders.” The unit commitments are listed below. The unit is committed to ensuring

1. Candidates understand the conceptual framework. 2. Candidates are committed to student learning and the belief that all students can learn. 3. Candidates know their licensure area content and can make meaningful applications of the content during

field experiences. 4. Candidates know how to engage students and organize instruction that enhances learning. 5. Candidates think systematically about their practice and use problem solving, critical thinking and

reflection in their daily practice. 6. Candidates become members of professional communities, collaborate with professional educators, and

demonstrate the value of life-long learning. 7. Candidates develop a respect for diversity and become inclusive educators who enhance learning

opportunities for all students. 8. Candidates demonstrate both oral and written communication skills appropriate to their field of

endorsement. 9. Faculty and candidates model ethical practices, values, and dispositions. 10. Faculty model a variety of instructional strategies supported by wisdom of practice and educational

research. 11. Ensure faculty integrates content within and across the disciplines and applies knowledge to life

situations. 12. Professional growth for all faculty and staff members. 13. Regular and systematic program evaluations, through the analysis of program data, and making program

modifications when appropriate. 14. The development of collaborative/cooperative agreements with school districts, higher education faculty

and other members of the professional community. 15. The implementation of a technology plan for each program that enables candidates to enhance learning

for all students. 16. Involvement in service to the wider community.

The Evaluation Process To continually monitor progress and identify program strengths and weaknesses, the SOE intentionally includes the evaluation process within the SOE conceptual framework. The evaluation process enables the program to assess, both internally and externally, candidate progress on designed program objectives, the scope and quality of the program, the effectiveness of operation, faculty competence, and graduate performance. Candidate performance data are analyzed and reviewed annually by undergraduate and graduate faculty, the SOE Education Advisory Council (EAC), and the Professional Education Council (PEC) to evaluate program effectiveness and the need for course and/or program change.

10

Ed.D. Program Assessments The Ed.D. program 1. Aligns the Ed.D. program objectives to 2008 ISLLC standards and KSDE district leadership program

standards. Program assessments are closely associated with program objectives to assure that candidate performance is assessed on all program objectives and ISLLC/KSDE district leadership standards.

2. Requires each candidate to electronically submit performance assessments relating to program objectives onto the TaskStream Accountability Management system. These assessments are graded on-line providing candidate performance data on all program objectives.

3. Requires each candidate to satisfy and maintain progress on the Ed.D. assessment plan including GPA and Professional Skills;

4. Requires each candidate to participate in a dispositions assessment during each Colloquium, which provides SOE faculty with an opportunity to evaluate each candidate's dispositions. The results of the disposition instruments are one tool that predicts the probability of a candidate's success in educational leadership. The disposition responses are used for counseling purposes.

5. Requires each candidate during each Colloquium and Field Experience II to complete an "efficiency rating" of his or her perceived effectiveness and abilities on each of the program objectives.

6. Requires each candidate complete an "End of Course” (EOC) survey for each program course and instructor. The survey consists of the candidate's evaluation of the course objectives/content and the instructor’s knowledge and instruction.

7. Requires all administrative mentors and University supervisors of the Field Experiences complete Field Experience Evaluation forms. These Field Experience Evaluation forms are linked to the program objectives.

8. Requests each program graduate to complete an appraisal form toward the end of the first and third year following the completion of the program. A candidate is requested to provide an "efficiency rating" of his or her perceived effectiveness on each program objective.

9. Requests employers of program graduates in administrative positions to complete an "efficiency rating" of a graduate’s effectiveness on each of the program objectives (program evaluations remain anonymous).

10. Requires candidates to successfully complete and defend a program portfolio that address the three portfolio requirements identified within this document.

11. Requires each licensure candidate to pass the licensure assessments (Superintendent Leadership Assessment) prior to district leadership licensure.

The data gathered from all program assessments are reviewed annually by Ed.D. faculty, the SOE EAC, the GEC and the PEC for the purpose of evaluating and making recommended program changes.

11

SECTION II GOVERNANCE

The School of Education (SOE) faculty and administration play a major role in formulating policy recommendations; however, all policies must be approved by the SOE Professional Education Council (PEC). Recommendations and decisions within the SOE are made by the following groups and/or persons:

1. The SOE Dean The SOE Dean provides the leadership to plan, deliver, and operate coherent programs of study for all

undergraduate and graduate education programs. The SOE Dean assumes oversight responsibilities for all SOE undergraduate and graduate programs including, but not limited to, employment of faculty and staff, program modifications, curriculum, accreditation, licensure, budgeting, and governance.

2. The SOE Professional Education Council

The SOE Professional Education Council (PEC) serves as the major policy-making body for formulating all undergraduate and graduate education program policies. The PEC meets monthly and conducts other meetings as necessary. The PEC is composed of a) Chairs of the undergraduate and graduate Departments of Education and Assistant Dean; b) the Dean of the SOE (ex-officio member with voice but without voting privileges); c) the CAS and SPGS Directors of Academic Records (ex-officio members with voting privileges); and all SOE faculty/staff serving ½ time or more. The Chairs of the undergraduate and graduate Departments of Education cooperatively prepare agendas and act as co-chairs for the PEC.

The primary responsibilities of the PEC include the following: a) Approve academic programs, curriculum, policies and procedures for the undergraduate and

graduate education programs. The CAS retains the authority to determine the undergraduate general education curriculum for all SOE undergraduate candidates;

b) Approve undergraduate and graduate education curriculum modifications; c) Approve undergraduate and graduate program assessment requirements including admission,

candidate progress, and graduation requirements for all education programs; d) Approve candidates for degrees; e) Serve as a resource for the employment of faculty; and f) Make recommendations to the SOE Dean for policy and program change.

Minutes of all PEC meetings are distributed to each Council member and a copy is kept on file.

Members of the PEC are invited to attend all SOE Education Advisory Council meetings. PEC recommendations and decisions are forwarded to the SOE Dean for approval prior to submission

to the University Academic Council (UAC). The SOE Dean serves on the UAC. UAC policy approval moves to the University Board of Trustees.

3. Undergraduate and Graduate Departments of Education

The Undergraduate Education Department (UED) and the Graduate Education Department (GED) each meet at least monthly. The UED and GED serve as vehicles for making recommendations for program and policy changes to the separate undergraduate and graduate education committees (see UTEC and GEC below). Minutes of the UED and GED meetings are maintained for future reference. The undergraduate and graduate department meetings are chaired by the undergraduate or graduate department chair.

12

4. Undergraduate and Graduate Education Committees The undergraduate department of education reports to the Undergraduate Teacher Education Committee (UTEC) and the graduate department of education reports to the Graduate Education Committee (GEC). Action taken by the GEC is submitted to the SPGS Faculty Senate for review and feedback, and feedback is considered at the following GEC meeting. Action taken by the separate UTEC and GEC, following faculty senate feedback, is submitted to the SOE PEC for consideration. The chairs of the undergraduate and graduate departments chair their respective UTEC and GEC and co-chair the PEC.

The GEC is composed of all Graduate School of Education and the Liberal Arts faculty members serving ½ time or more, the SOE education specialists, one adjunct faculty member from each SOE and Liberal Arts program, one student representative from each of graduate SOE and Liberal Arts programs, the Director of Graduate Programs in Liberal Arts and Education, the Coordinator of Assessment, and the SPGS Assistant Academic Dean (ex-officio). The Dean of the SOE shall serve as an ex officio member without vote. Responsibilities of the GEC include the following: a) Recommend curriculum and academic procedures to the PEC; b) Recommend program policies and operational procedures to the PEC; c) Review candidate progress and approve program candidates for field experience placement; d) Make recommendations to the PEC regarding assessment requirements including admission,

program progress, and graduation requirements; and e) Serve as a resource for the employment of faculty.

5. Undergraduate and Graduate Department Chairs The undergraduate and graduate Department Chairs report directly to the SOE Dean; however, chairs are responsible for communicating with their respective CAS or SPGS Dean. The undergraduate and graduate Department Chairs, and/or their representatives, serve on the respective CAS and SPGS EPCs and Faculty Senates. The department chairs also serve as communication links with all faculty and staff at their respective levels and assist with licensure issues.

6. School of Education Advisory Council

The SOE Education Advisory Council (EAC) serves in an advisory capacity for all undergraduate and graduate SOE programs. The EAC meets annually to evaluate program data and make recommendations to the PEC for program change. The EAC is composed of the a) Dean of the SOE (who will chair the EAC); b) the undergraduate and graduate education program chairs; c) all SOE faculty and staff serving at least ½ time; d) area school administrator and teacher educator representatives; and (e) student or graduate representatives for each education program.

The primary responsibilities of the SOE EAC include the following:

a) Evaluate the effectiveness and relevance of undergraduate and graduate education programs, design, delivery, and curriculum;

b) Annually review education program data and assessment instruments; and c) Make recommendations to the SOE Dean and PEC relating to necessary program changes and/or

modifications.

7. Program modifications that result in program or policy changes must be approved in the stated sequence by the following:

• Graduate Education Department (GED); • Graduate Education Committees (GEC); • Report to SPGS Faculty Senates for feedback prior to submission to the

13

GEC for final action; • Professional Education Council; • The School of Education Dean; • The University Academic Council; • The University President; and • The Baker University Board of Trustees.

Due Process Procedure Students have the right to petition, in written grievance form, decisions made by the University faculty and administration. Students wishing to petition faculty or administrative decisions should submit a written grievance with all support material to the Dean of the School of Education in a timely manner. The Dean will refer the appeal to the Faculty and Student Grievance Committee for a recommendation.

SECTION III ASSESSMENT PLAN for the

DOCTOR OF EDUCATION (Ed.D.) IN EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP

Admission to the Ed.D. Program is a selective process administered by the SOE graduate education faculty. The following information must be submitted (items 1 – 4) and assessments completed (items 5 – 7) in a timely fashion. The applicant’s information and assessment performance is reviewed by the faculty to determine who is invited to participate in each Ed.D. cohort group (typically 25 are invited to participate in each cohort). Admission re quirements include:

1. An official transcript showing completion of a graduate degree from a regionally accredited institution with a final GPA equal to or greater than 3.50 on a 4.00 scale;

2. Evidence of completion of a state approved building administrator program (for District Leadership License (DLL) seeking applicants only);

3. Evidence of three years of experience as an educational professional in a K-16 program that is accredited by an institution recognized by a state;

4. Three recommendations that attest to the candidate’s leadership potential; 5. Writing samples that demonstrate advanced writing skills; 6. A score on a University critical thinking instrument that demonstrates well developed critical thinking

and problem solving skills; and 7. A score on a dispositions activity that demonstrates professional beliefs, values and insights important

to educational leadership. Program Options Applicants meeting the above requirements are considered for admission under one of the following options: 1. Ed.D. 59+ Hour program: Applicants who possess a Master’s degree are admitted as a candidate

for the Ed.D. degree, which can also lead to District Leadership Licensure (for those holding building leadership licensure). The program includes 59+ credit hours as defined in this handbook. The total program costs for tuition, books, and fees are set annually by the University.

2. Ed.D. program with Specialist degree earned: Applicants who possess a Specialist degree in educational administration and hold District Leadership Licensure issued by Kansas and/or Missouri

14

are eligible for admission. The program includes a minimum of 45 credit hours of coursework and clinical research. The hours required are determined after a review of the applicant’s transcript. Current program costs for tuition, books, and fees are assessed at a minimum rate of 75% of full program costs. If a candidate is required to take more than 45 credit hours to complete the program, the candidate pays the existing credit hour charge.

3. Ed.D. program with Master’s degree and district licensure earned: Applicants who possess a Master’s degree in Educational Administration and hold District Leadership Licensure issued by Kansas and/or Missouri are eligible for admission. The program includes a minimum of 50 credit hours of coursework and clinical research. The hours required are determined after a review of the applicant’s transcript. Current program costs for tuition, books, and fees are assessed at the minimum rate of 85% of the full program cost. If a candidate is required to take more than 50 credit hours to complete the program, the candidate pays the existing credit hour charge.

Program Progress Requirements

Prior to placement in Field Experience II the candidate

1. Maintains a Professional Skills score equal to or greater than 4.0 (on a 5.0 scale); 2. Maintains a GPA equal to or greater than 3.5 (on a 4.0 scale) by the end of the fifth course and

thereafter with no grade below a B; 3. Must successfully complete DED 9030 Field Experience I (receiving mean scores equal to or greater

than 3.5 from the FE I mentor and University supervisor) and immediately enroll in DED 9031 Field Experience II;

4. Must stay current with all University program fees.

Program Graduation Requirements for the Ed.D. Program

1. Successful completion of all program coursework requirements with a cumulative program GPA equal to or greater than 3.5 (on a 4.0 scale) with no grade below a B;

2. Possession of a Professional Skills score equal to or greater than 4.0 (on a 5.0 scale); 3. Successful completion of the two Field Experiences, as evidenced by artifacts and reflections

provided in the electronic portfolio, scoring “Proficient” or above; 4. Satisfactory recommendations with a mean score equal to or greater than 3.5 (on a 5.0 scale) from the

educational mentor and University supervisor on program field experiences; 5. Successful completion and defense of program electronic portfolio scoring at the proficient level or

above on the portfolio rubric; 6. Successful defense of the Clinical Research Study (CRS); 7. Successful completion of all program requirements, including the CRS, within a six-year time frame; 8. Payment of all program fees; and 9. Approval by University faculty.

Ed.D. Program Probation When an Ed.D. candidate fails to meet the program requirements identified above, the candidate

is 1) dropped from the program or 2) placed on probation. If a candidate is placed on probation, he or she is notified by SOE administration as to the steps necessary to move to the status of a candidate in good standing. If a student fails to meet these requirements at or near the end of the program, he or she must understand this failure jeopardizes program and/or degree completion.

15

SECTION IV CURRICULUM REQUIREMENT for the DOCTOR OF EDUCATION (Ed.D.)

IN EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND ENROLLMENT GUIDELINES Common Program Strands

• Leadership Practices • Critical Thinking and Problem Solving • Communication and Collaboration • Beliefs, Values, and Ethical Issues • Enrichment through Diversity

Ed.D. Degree Curriculum Course Title ______ Credit Hours 1. DED 9000 Foundations of Educational Leadership 3

2. DED 9001 Collaborative Leadership in a Community Context 3

3. DED 9002 Leading Special and Diverse Populations 3

4. DED 9010 Statistical Analysis 3

5. DED 9011 Methods of Inquiry and Research 3

6. DED 9020 Professional Inquiry Colloquium I 2

7. DED 9003 Developing Professional Learning Communities 3

8. DED 9004 Curriculum, Learning and Instruction 3

9. DED 9005 Legal, Policy, and Ethical Issues in Leadership 3

10. DED 9006 Human Resources Management 3

11. DED 9007 Management of Finances, Facilities and Resources 3

12. DED 9008 Program Planning and Evaluation 3

13. DED 9021 Professional Inquiry Colloquium II 2

Please refer to the continuous enrollment guidelines on the following page

14. DED 9900 Clinical Research Development 6

15. DED 9902 Clinical Research Completion and Presentation 10+

16. DED 9030 Field Experience I 2

17. DED 9031 Field Experience II 2

18. DED 9032 Portfolio Presentation 2

_____

TOTAL REQUIRED HOURS for the Ed.D. 59+

16

CURRICULUM REQUIRED for DISTRICT LEADERSHIP LICENSURE

Common Program Strands

• Leadership Practices • Critical Thinking and Problem Solving • Communication and Collaboration • Beliefs, Values, and Ethical Issues • Enrichment through Diversity

Course Title Credit Hours 1. DED 9000 Foundations of Educational Leadership 3

2. DED 9001 Collaborative Leadership in a Community Context 3

3. DED 9002 Leading Special and Diverse Populations 3

4. DED 9010 Statistical Analysis 3

5. DED 9020 Professional Inquiry Colloquium I 2

6. DED 9003 Developing Professional Learning Communities 3

7. DED 9004 Curriculum, Learning and Instruction 3

8. DED 9005 Legal, Policy, and Ethical Issues in Leadership 3

9. DED 9006 Human Resources Management 3

10. DED 9007 Management of Finances, Facilities and Resources 3

11. DED 9008 Program Planning and Evaluation 3

12. DED 9021 Professional Inquiry Colloquium II 2

13. DED 9030 Field Experience I 2

14. DED 9031 Field Experience II 2

15. DED 9032 Portfolio Presentation 2 _____ TOTAL REQUIRED HOURS for DISTRICT LICENSURE ONLY 40

District Leadership Licensure Requirements

1. Satisfactory completion of the DLL program listed above and endorsement from Baker University; and

2. A passing score on the ETS School Superintendent Assessment (SSA) required by the Kansas and Missouri departments of education.

17

Continuous Enrollment Guidelines A candidate enrolled in the Ed.D. program is enrolled without additional charge for a three-year period. Prior to the completion of the three-year period, a candidate is expected to complete DED 9030 Field Experience I and DED 9032 Portfolio Presentation. If Field Experience II or either of the Clinical Research Studies (CRS), DED 9900 and DED 9902, are not completed by the end of the three-year period, a candidate is expected to maintain continuous enrollment at an additional personal cost of one (1) to three (3) credit-hours per semester (depending on the need for financial aid - the cost is determined by the business office) until Field Experience II and both of the CR studies are complete or the six year time frame expires. A candidate who does not complete the CR studies in the six year time frame must appeal to the Dean of the SOE for a time extension or be dropped from the program. A candidate enrolls in DED 9030, 9031, 9032, 9900, and 9902 courses according to the schedule below.

• A candidate must enroll in DED 9030 Field Experience I during DED 9020 Professional Inquiry Colloquium I.

• A candidate must enroll in DED 9031 Field Experience II immediately following the completion

of DED 9030.

• A candidate must enroll in DED 9032 Portfolio Presentation and DED 9900 CR Development during DED 9021 Professional Inquiry Colloquium II.

• A candidate must enroll in DED 9902 Clinical Research Completion and Presentation at the

completion of DED 9900.

• A candidate must be continuously enrolled after the program coursework is completed in either DED 9900 CR Development or DED 9902 CR Completion and Presentation until all Ed.D. program CRS requirements are completed. The registrar records a pass grade for both 9900 and 9902 until each course is complete, at which time a letter grade is recorded.

• Once the first three chapters have been presented and approved by the candidate’s CRS

committee, a passing grade for 9900 CR Development is recorded on the transcript and the candidate immediately enrolls in DED 9902.

• Once the candidate has successfully defended his/her CRS, the document is edited, prepared for

publication, and a letter grade for DED 9902 is entered on the transcript.

SECTION V FIELD EXPERIENCE REQUIREMENTS AND PLACEMENT

The SOE has designed two field experiences for the Ed.D. program that help candidates transfer and make connections between theory and knowledge and real world leadership practices. Field experiences

• Help the candidate develop leadership skills and behaviors through engagement in meaningful real-life leadership activities;

18

• Assist the candidate in transferring leadership knowledge and theory into leadership skills, behaviors, and activities that enhance learning communities; and

• Provide service to the host educational community. During Field Experience I and II, the candidate is expected to assist in significant and varied leadership responsibilities under the supervision of a University supervisor and an educational field mentor. The field mentor is chosen by the candidate and approved by the University Field Experience Coordinator. The University supervising administrator and field mentor work cooperatively with the candidate to select a series of meaningful field experience activities and projects from the suggested activities associated with the program objectives. Through a combination of course work and field experiences, the candidate begins to develop leadership performance behaviors associated with program objectives and standards. The candidate must enroll in two separate field experiences, Field Experience I and Field Experience II. Each of the two field experiences consist of a minimum of 60 clock hours at the educational site. During one of the two directed field experiences a minimum of 12 clock hours must be spent working in a diverse setting. Field experience activities must relate to program objectives and/or performance indicators. Time is distributed across the six program standards. A candidate is expected to address all six program objectives during the two field experiences; however, the candidate must address a minimum of four program objectives/standards in each of the two field experiences. Candidates are expected to work with diverse school/community issues on at least one of the field experience activities. The candidate is required to submit reflections for each program objective addressed in their field experience and associate each activity with one of the six program objectives. The candidate may log participation in local, state, and national activities. Up to six hours of professional development activities can be credited to each of the two field experience time requirements. At the end of each field experience, a candidate must include as part of the electronic portfolio the following:

• Description of each activity stating what responsibilities were assumed, where and when the experience occurred, and under what conditions; and

• Reflections on what was done, what was learned, and what may be done differently. Placement in Field Experience I (FE I) and Field Experience II (FE II) is subject to the requirements and expectations stated in this section. FE I placement is approved by the lead faculty advisor, subject to the candidate meeting the field experience requirements stated below. Criteria for placement in field experiences include the following: 1. Each candidate must successfully complete all program coursework requirements (up to the point of

placement in FE I or FE II) with a cumulative program GPA equal to or greater than 3.5 (on a 4.0 scale) with no grade below a B;

2. Each candidate must maintain a Professional Skills mean score equal to or greater than 4.0 (on a 5.0 scale); and

3. A candidate must enroll in Field Experience II immediately following successful completion of Field Experience I.

All mentors must be certified and have three years of district administration experience, and two years experience in their present district assignment. A doctorate degree is preferred.

19

SECTION VI CLINICAL RESEARCH REQUIREMENTS

The doctoral clinical research study is conducted in accordance with guidelines established for doctoral candidates of Baker University. The doctoral study follows recommendations found in “The Role and Nature of the Doctoral Dissertation: A Policy Statement,” Council of Graduate Schools. Purpose The doctoral clinical research study

1. Reveals the candidate’s ability to analyze, interpret and synthesize information; 2. Demonstrates the candidate’s knowledge of the literature relating to the research project and

acknowledges prior scholarship on which the study is built; 3. Describes the methods and procedures used; 4. Presents results in a sequential and logical manner; and 5. Displays the candidate’s ability to discuss fully and coherently the meaning of the results; and 6. Informs the field and improves practice.

The clinical research study is the beginning of the candidate’s scholarly work, not the culmination. Clinical research is expected to provide the candidate with hands-on, directed experience in the primary research methods of the discipline and should provide for the type of research that is expected after the Doctor of Education degree is awarded. Process Once a candidate has entered the program, he or she receives a full description of the process for completing the study, including the following:

• Clinical research proposal development and approval. • Clinical research style guide. • Statement on originality. • Format and publication of the research document. • Adviser-Advisee relationship. • Administrative and faculty support. • Study presentation process. • Deadline to complete the research project.

The candidate is expected to successfully complete phase one of the research study through enrollment in “Methods and Inquiry of Research, Statistical Analysis, and Professional Inquiry Colloquium I.” The second phase of the research project includes enrollment in “Clinical Research Development” that involves six credit hours that culminates in the completion of Chapters One, Two and Three. A candidate must enroll in DED 9900 CR Development during DED 9020 Professional Inquiry Colloquium I. The third phase of the research project, “Clinical Research Completion and Presentation,” includes enrollment in ten-plus (10+) credit hours. Once the first three chapters have been presented and approved by the candidate’s CRS Major Advisor, Research Analyst, and University committee member, a passing grade for DED 9900 CR Development is recorded on the transcript and the candidate is immediately enrolled in DED 9902. At the completion of the third year in the program if the CRS is not successfully completed,, defended and approved by the candidate’s CRS committee, the candidate is expected to participate in continuous enrollment of one credit-hour per semester (at the current rate per credit hour) until the research study is successfully completed, presented, and approved by the candidate’s research committee.

20

Once the candidate has successfully defended his/her CRS, the document is edited, prepared for publication, and a letter grade for DED 9902 is entered on the transcript. General Content Following approval of the study proposal by the candidate’s major advisor and committee, the candidate submits the study to include the following:

• Chapter 1: Introduction and Rationale – A description the study including the purpose and research questions.

• Chapter 2: Review of the literature – A logical link of data to the proposition. • Chapter 3: Methodology – The hypothesis(es) and a description of the unit or units of analysis to

be used. • Chapter 4: Results – A description of the findings. • Chapter 5: Discussion – A description of the interpretations made from the results, including the

criteria for interpreting the findings and the applications to future studies.

Defense of the Clinical Research Study 1. The candidate defends the Clinical Research study (CRS) before the candidate’s Advisory

Committee. The major advisor is responsible for scheduling the examination after receiving assurances from committee members that they are fully satisfied that the CRS is acceptable. The candidate is responsible for distributing unbound copies of the CRS in a timely manner (See CRS Process Guidelines on page 20.).

2. The Advisory Committee is responsible for conducting the defense and asks the candidate questions pertinent to the CRS. The major advisor prepares the candidate prior to the examination by reviewing the candidate’s responsibilities for presenting the CRS. The major advisor provides a brief introductory opening. The candidate is responsible for preparing and conducting a presentation of the CRS, including a review of the research questions/hypotheses and explanation of the instruments and analyses, followed by a concise presentation of findings. The Advisory Committee may then pose questions for the candidate. Other faculty members, program candidates, and personal guests invited by the candidate may attend but may not ask questions of the candidate.

3. When the Advisory Committee has posed all necessary questions for the candidate to respond in defense of his/her CRS, the major advisor excuses the candidate and conducts a discussion among the committee to determine the candidate’s success in completing the CRS. If the candidate’s defense is successful, he/she is congratulated, requested to make any minor edits prior to publication, and recommended for graduation from the Ed.D. program. If the candidate’s defense is not of sufficient quality, the Advisory Committee may request the candidate to make requested revisions and reschedule a follow-up defense of the candidate’s CRS or deny approval of the study.

4. When all members of the Advisory Committee are satisfied, the candidate obtains at least five bound copies of the CRS. The candidate secures signatures of the major advisor and Advisory Committee members on all copies. One copy each is distributed to the major advisor, Collins Library, and School of Education Graduate Department.

5. The major advisor files a grade report with Academic Records for the number of credit hours earned for DED 9902 Clinical Research Study Completion and Presentation. The candidate completes all required forms for graduation.

21

Clinical Research Study (CRS) • What is it?

The Higher Learning Commission recommended the CRS be defined as “action research in the field” o Develops research skills with an applied focus o Emphasizes research relating to “best practices” in the field o Supports the development of the practitioner scholar

• Who is involved?

o Research Analyst (SOE statistical specialist) Provides extensive assistance to candidate and major advisor in the areas of research

design, methodology, analysis of data, and results of the study. Provides feedback on organization of the study and clarity of writing Participates in defense

o Major Advisor (SOE graduate faculty member)

Reviews and responds to candidate’s initial draft of the CRS proposal with the assistance of the Research Analyst

Approves outline of Chapters 1-3 Works with candidate and Research Analyst to develop research plan and

methodology Provides candidate with IRB form and approves proposal prior to submission Approves Chapters 1-3, in collaboration with Research Analyst prior to distribution

to other committee members for input Reviews and approves Chapters 4 and 5 with the assistance of the Research Analyst Works with Research Analyst to provide feedback and approval of all steps prior to

involvement of other committee members Communicates committee responsibilities to all committee members Coordinates scheduling of defense Gives final approval for all requested revisions prior to publication

o Third Committee Member (University faculty member (includes SOE faculty))

Reviews and provides feedback to the Major Advisor for Chapters 1-3 following thorough review by Major Advisor and Research Analyst

Reviews and provides feedback to the Major Advisor for Chapters 1-5 following thorough review by Major Advisor and Research Analyst

Participates in defense

o Fourth Advisor (Guest invited by candidate) Reviews and provides feedback to the Major Advisor for Chapters 1-3 following

thorough review by Major Advisor and Research Analyst Reviews and provides feedback to the Major Advisor for Chapters 1-5 following

thorough review by Major Advisor and Research Analyst Participates in defense.

22

Clinical Research Study (CRS) Process Guidelines Steps Responsible

Parties Guidelines Target Timeline Notes

1. Initial draft of CRS proposal

Major advisor, research analyst, and candidate

Candidate works with major advisor and research analyst in the development of the research questions Month One Notes

2. SOE Approval of CRS proposal

Major advisor, research analyst and Candidate

Short description of Chapters 1-3. Chapters 1 and 3 must include a thoroughly developed research plan, research questions, and research methodology; but Chapter 2 can be a brief summary. These items must be approved by the major advisor and research analyst.

Month Two

May be started in DED 9010/9011 but not a course requirement.

3. Approval of the Institutional Review Board (IRB) Proposal*

Major advisor, research analyst, candidate, and IRB Committee

IRB form is provided to the candidate by the major advisor. The IRB proposal must be approved by the major advisor and research analyst before it is submitted to the IRB.

Month Three

May be written in DED 9010/9011 but not a course requirement.

4. Major advisor and research analyst approval of chapters 1-3

Major advisor, research analyst and candidate

At this point, the first three chapters must be thorough and complete. The major advisor and the research analyst have the responsibility to provide thorough feedback on research design, organization, and clarity of writing. Major advisor is responsible for submitting the literature review to turnitin.com and sharing the results with the candidate.

Month Six

There must be on-going communication between the major advisor via email and/or face-to-face meetings. Upon approval of the IRB, the candidate can begin data collection.

5. CRS committee approval of chapters 1-3.

Major advisor and university committee member

University committee member is added at this point with the specific responsibility of providing feedback regarding points of confusion or minor proofreading suggestions.

Month Six

6. Initial draft of chapter 4.

Major advisor, research analyst, and candidate

During the development of Chapter 4, the candidate and major advisor will work closely with the research analyst to compile and interpret data.

Month Eight

University committee member provides feedback within three weeks of receiving chapters 1-3.

7. SOE approval of chapters 4-5

Major advisor and research analyst

At this point, chapters 4 & 5 must be thorough and complete. The major advisor with the assistance of the research analyst has the responsibility to provide thorough feedback on research design, organization, and clarity of writing.

Month Nine

Frequent communication between the major advisor and the research analyst is critical.

8. CRS committee approval of chapters 1-5

All CRS committee members

At this point, the university committee member and the external committee member provide feedback regarding points of confusion or minor proofreading suggestions. A tentative defense date is scheduled by the major advisor.

Month Ten

Frequent communication between the major advisor and the research analyst is critical.

9. CRS defense

All committee members and candidate

Defense date is confirmed once a majority of the committee members have approved Chapters 1-5. At the completion of the defense session, committee members may vote to approve, approve with minor modification, or deny approval. Final decision must have majority vote.

No Later than Month Eleven

Committee members provide feedback within three weeks of receiving entire study. Print copy provided to committee.

23

SECTION VII PORTFOLIO REQUIREMENTS

Ed.D. candidates enroll in DED 9023 Portfolio Presentation following DED 9031 Field Experience II. The Program Portfolio is a purposeful collection of educational artifacts designed to provide tangible evidence of the candidate’s growth and learning relating to program objectives. The Program Portfolio

1. Provides a “Showcase” of artifacts that demonstrate the candidate’s skills as a potential educational administrator.

2. Provides evidence the candidate has met or made significant progress on all program objectives. 3. Provides evidence of the candidate’s growth in the program. 4. Demonstrates the candidate’s ability to use reflective construction.

Program instructors provide opportunities for candidates to develop most portfolio artifacts as part of course activities and field experiences. Portfolio Content The portfolio addresses the following three sections: The candidate shall prepare a written portfolio summary that includes the following three sections:

1. The candidate submits a summary of Ed.D. learning experiences associated with each of the six program objectives /ISLLC standards, resulting from the Ed.D. program coursework assessments and/or artifacts. Each of the six program objectives/ISLLC standards must be addressed; however, each required program artifact need not be addressed.

2. The candidate articulates how his or her stated beliefs and mission will impact leadership behaviors and practices. The candidate describes how his or her beliefs and mission statements have changed as a result of the program growth.

3. The candidate includes written documentation and reflections on major program field experiences (occurring in Field Experiences I and/or II) including:

• A description of major activities, what responsibilities were assumed, where and when

the experience occurred, and under what conditions; and • Reflections on what was done, what was leaned, and what might be done differently.

Portfolio Defense

1. The candidate writes a Portfolio summary (see above description). The candidate submits the Portfolio summary to his/her major and secondary advisors. Upon final approval of the summary by the major and secondary advisor, the candidate and major advisor work together to schedule a presentation and defense of the entire portfolio.

2. The candidate organizes an oral presentation that portrays all three portions of the portfolio and is prepared to respond to questions. The presentation is attended by the major advisor, a representative of the Doctoral Faculty, and the Directed Field Experience (DFE) supervisor.

3. Successful completion is determined by the major advisor, a representative of the Doctoral Faculty, and the DFE supervisor. Completion of two credit hours for DED 9032 are communicated to Academic Records and awarded.

24

The following rubric will be used to evaluate the Portfolio defense.

EdD Portfolio Defense

Unsatisfactory 0 – 6.9

Basic 7 – 8.3

Proficient 8.4 – 9.1

Distinguished 9.2 - 10

Score

Reflection on Artifacts and ISLLC Standards

The candidate submits reflections that are vague, unclear and do not clearly describe knowledge gained on each of the standards.

The candidate submits reflections that briefly summarize what has been learned on each of the program standards.

The candidate submits reflections on course assessments and activities that demonstrate some growth on each of the six program objectives/ISLLC Standards.

The candidate submits very thoughtful reflections on course assessments (artifacts) and activities that demonstrate significant growth in each of the six program objectives/ISLLC standards.

Reflection on Beliefs and Mission

The stated beliefs and mission make little reference to enhancing the learning environment. Discussion is not provided on personal growth during the program or the impact on future leadership actions.

The candidate attempts to discuss a commitment to learning, discusses changes in his/her beliefs and mission and describes the impact on leadership actions.

The candidate demonstrates some commitment to learning, makes a reasonable analysis of personal growth relating to beliefs and mission and describes how his/her beliefs/mission will impact future leadership actions.

The candidate demonstrates a strong commitment and passion for learning, provides a thoughtful analysis of personal growth relating to beliefs/mission and describes the impact his/her beliefs/mission will have on leadership behaviors and practices.

Reflection on Field Experiences

The field experience activities are not well defined, do not relate to standards and do not address candidate learning.

Most major field experiences are described and related to the six standards. Some description of candidate learning is provided.

Major field experience activities are described with a brief description of what is learned and what standards are addressed.

The candidate clearly articulates major field experience activities, carefully reflecting on what is learned, the standards addressed and what will be done to improve the activity.

Writing Conventions

The paper does not meet expectations for writing at the doctoral level. Citations, quotes and references are omitted.

There are several errors of writing conventions. Citations, quotes and references to experts in the field are limited.

Some quotes from texts, instructors, and experts in the field are cited. There are few errors in writing conventions.

All writing conventions are followed. The paper uses appropriate quotes and citations from texts, instructors, and experts in related fields.

Presentation of the Portfolio

The presentation is not well prepared and does not meet doctorate level expectations.

The presentation format is somewhat vague or confusing. Speaking skills are less than confident.

The presentation is given in an appropriate format. Speaking skills are somewhat confident.

The presentation is given in a clear visual format appropriately portraying the candidate's thoughts. Speaking skills demonstrate confidence and the audience is actively engaged.

Response to Committee Questions

The candidate is unable to accurately respond to a majority of the questions.

The candidate responds correctly to less than half the questions asked or is only able to make shallow connections to other knowledge or material.

The candidate responds to most questions and demonstrates an ability to go beyond what was prepared by making connections to other knowledge or material.

The candidate responds clearly to questions from committee members. Responses are focused and demonstrate a deep knowledge base and the ability to make connections to prior learning experiences.

25

SECTION VIII DISTRICT LEADERSHIP LICENSURE/CERTIFICATION

REQUIREMENTS & PROCEDURES An Ed.D. candidate, holding a building leadership license/certificate, is eligible to obtain a Kansas PreK-12 District Leadership License (DLL) upon successful completion of the Ed.D. licensure requirements. An Ed.D. candidate upon completion of the doctorate degree is eligible for a Missouri Superintendent Certificate K-12. An Ed.D. candidate seeking Kansas DLL or a Missouri Superintendent Certificate as indicated above must hold a building leadership license or certificate and pass the ETS School Superintendent Assessment . The passing score on the School Superintendent Assessment in Kansas is 157 and Missouri is 158. Since other application requirements for the above-mentioned license and certificate vary between Kansas and Missouri please see below the licensure and certification requirements for each state. Kansas Licensure Application Procedures An Ed.D. candidate, holding a Kansas building leadership license, upon successful completion of the Baker University School of Education DLL program can be recommended to the Kansas State Department of Education for a initial district leadership license. It should be noted the holding of a Kansas building leadership license to qualify for district licensure is a Baker University requirement and not a Kansas State Department of Education requirement. A candidate is not required to complete the clinical research program requirement prior to application for DLL. The application process includes the following.

• Submit electronically a Kansas State Department of Education Form 1-Conditional License or Added Endorsements application form to the Baker University licensure officer.

• Submit to the Baker University licensure officer an official Baker transcript indicating successful completion of the DLL program of study.

• Submit to Baker University a passing score on the ETS School Superintendent Assessment. (157 or higher)

• Submit to the Kansas State Department of Education a licensure payment for the initial two year conditional license in district level leadership.

The initial two year license in DLL can be renewed within five years of the issuance date for an additional two years. Missouri Certification Application Procedures An Ed.D. candidate upon successful completion of the Baker University doctoral program of study can be recommended to the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education for an Initial Superintendent Certificate. The Initial Superintendent Certificate (K-12) is a four year certificate and an applicant for this certificate must hold a Missouri teaching certificate. Applicants for this certificate must have one year of building administration experience and present evidence of an educational specialist or advanced degree program (Ed.D.) in educational leadership. The application process includes the following.

• Submit a Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education Application for Missouri Superintendent’s Certificate to the Baker University licensure officer. Section I is completed by the applicant. Section II must be completed by the applicant’s school district. Section III must be completed by the Baker licensure officer.

26

• Submit to Baker University and the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education a passing score on the ETS School Superintendent Assessment. (158 or higher)

• Submit an official Baker University transcript indicating successful completion of the Ed.D. Program in Educational Leadership.

The Baker University licensure officer will assist an Ed.D. candidate apply for Kansas DLL and an Ed.D. program completer apply for a Missouri Initial Superintendent Certificate. MSSL Adjusted Building Licensure Program Requirements for Candidates who have Completed the Ed.D. Program A candidate who completes the Ed.D. program and does not have building or district leadership licensure may obtain both licensures by picking up the specified MSSL coursework identified in the table on the following page. The listing of MSSL required coursework is located on the left side of the table and relevant Ed.D. required coursework is listed on the right. The X in the middle box indicates MSSL courses that must be taken by those who complete the Ed.D. curriculum to gain building and district licensure. Five of the MSSL courses are satisfied, as marked, by similar Ed.D. courses. Several marked courses may be satisfied (through a transcript evaluation) by prior coursework (i.e. Assessment Strategies and Instructional Technology); however, a candidate who completes the Ed.D. program must enroll in the four MSSL core courses marked with the X (5010, 5020, 5030, 5050) as well as the DFE. A candidate is not permitted to enroll concurrently in an Ed.D. course and MSSL course (not to include field experiences and clinical research). A candidate may begin the MSSL DFE following successful completion of MAS 5010. The indicated Ed.D. coursework satisfies MSSL coursework; however, the reverse is not the case as MSSL courses does not cover sufficient Ed.D. content.

27

MSSL Adjusted Building Licensure Program Requirements for Candidates who have Completed the Ed.D. Program MSSL Course #

MSSL Course Names MSSL Courses that must be taken

Ed.D. Course #

Ed.D. Course Names

MAS 5010 Foundations of Educational Administration

X DED 9000 Foundations of Educational Leadership

MAS 5020 Organizational Health and Performance

X DED 9001 Collaborative Leadership in a Community Context

MAS 5030 School Personnel

X DED 9002 Leading Special and Diverse Populations

MAS 5040 Curriculum and Instruction for Admin.

Satisfied by DED 9004

DED 9003 Developing Professional Learning Communities

MAS 5050 Student Services, Climate and Programs

X DED 9004 Curriculum, Learning and Instruction

MAS 5060 Legal and Ethical Issues of School Leadership

Satisfied by DED 9005

DED 9005 Legal, Policy, and Ethical Issues in Leadership

MAS 5070 School Planning, Operation, and Finances

Satisfied by DED 9007

DED 9006 Human Resources Management

MAS 5504 Directed Field Experience X DED 9007 Management of Finances,

Facilities and Resources

EDU 5102 Assessment Strategies X DED 9008 Program Planning and Evaluation

EDU 5121 Inquiry and Research Satisfied by DED 9011

DED 9010 Statistical Analysis

EDU 5531 Today’s Learner Satisfied by DED 9002

DED 9011 Methods of Inquiry and Research

Instructional Technology Course

X DED 9020 Professional Inquiry Colloquium I

28

SECTION IX PROGRAM ADVISING

Each Ed.D. candidate is assigned a Major Faculty Advisor to assist him or her through the program. A Major Faculty Advisor

1. Maintains a course and program requirement completion plan for each advisee, ensuring that each advisee satisfactorily meets all course and program requirements;

2. Assists the advisee in preparing the program portfolio for defense; 3. Serves as the lead advisor on the advisee’s clinical research project; 4. Ensures that all program expectations are satisfactorily completed within the six-year time

frame; and 5. Works with the Coordinator of the Ed.D. program to monitor the candidate’s progress in the

program found in the candidate’s file.

29

APPENDIX

30

APPENDIX A DOCTORATE OF EDUCATION IN EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP

Supervisor’s Evaluation of Field Experiences

________________________ ____________________________ ______________ Candidate’s Name Supervisor’s Name Date

The School of Education has identified six objectives and numerous indicators that candidates in the Ed.D. Educational Leadership program are expected to develop in the process of becoming confident and competent educational leaders. Field experience Supervisors are asked to evaluate candidate performance on each of the six identified standards but not on all indicators, using the following rubric. 1 2 3 4 NO ______ Unsatisfactory Basic Proficient Distinguished Not Observed The Ed.D. candidate will 1. Facilitate the development, articulation, implementation, and stewardship of a vision of learning that is

shared and supported by all stake holders demonstrating the ability to ____a) Collaboratively develop and implement a shared vision and mission; ____b) Use data in the decision making process to identify goals and assess organizational effectiveness; ____c) Apply leadership theories, beliefs, and values to policy and practice; and ____d) Promote continuous and sustainable improvement. 2. Advocate, nurture, and sustain a school culture and instructional program conducive to student learning and

staff professional growth demonstrating the ability to ____a) Nurture a culture of collaboration, trust, learning and high expectations; ____b) Ensure the development of a comprehensive, research based curriculum supported by technology; ____c) Ensure the development of an effective co-curriculum program; ____d) Create learning environments that meet the needs of special and exceptional populations; ____e) Ensure the supervision of instruction; ____f) Develop assessment and accountability systems to monitor student progress; and ____g) Develop instructional and leadership capacities through professional development. 3. Ensure the management of the organization, operation, and resources to establish a safe, efficient, and

effective learning environment demonstrating the ability to ____a) Monitor and evaluate the management and operational systems; ____b) Align and use human, fiscal and technological resources using proactive management strategies; ____c) Manage facilities, equipment, and support systems to ensure effective learning environments; ____d) Ensure laws and policies are effectively applied, protecting the rights and confidentiality of all. 4. Collaborate with families and stakeholders, responding to diverse community interests and

needs, and mobilize community resources demonstrating the ability to ____a) Collect, analyze and apply community data pertinent to educational improvement; ____b) Develop effective consensus building, group processing, and conflict resolution skills; ____c) Build and sustain positive relationships with families, community partners and stakeholders; ____d) Promote understanding, appreciation and use of the community’s diverse resources; and ____e) Effectively apply laws to provide services for handicapped and special needs populations. 5. Act with integrity, fairness, and in an ethical manner demonstrating the ability to ____a) Model professional integrity, fairness, and ethics treating all persons fairly and with dignity; ____b) Safeguard the values of democracy, equity and diversity; and ____c) Consider moral and legal issues in decision making. 6. Understand, respond to, and influence the larger political, social, economic, and cultural context demonstrating the ability to ____a) Address the political, social, economic, and cultural context of the educational organization; ____b) Work with a board of education/directors understanding the political realities of such entities; ____c) Work with governing boards in the development of policies and practices; and ____d) Address trends, issues, and changes occurring in the school community. ___________________________________ ________________________________ Supervisor’s Signature Candidate’s Signature

31

APPENDIX B DOCTORATE OF EDUCATION IN EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP

Administrator Mentor’s Evaluation of Field Experiences

________________________ ____________________________ ______________ Candidate’s Name Mentor’s Name Date

The School of Education has identified six objectives and numerous indicators that candidates in the Ed.D. Educational Leadership program are expected to demonstrate in the process of becoming confident and competent educational leaders. Field experience Mentors are asked to evaluate candidate performance on each of the six identified standards but not on all indicators, using the following rubric. 1 2 3 4 NO _________ Unsatisfactory Basic Proficient Distinguished Not Observed The Ed.D. candidate will 1. Facilitate the development, articulation, implementation, and stewardship of a vision of learning that is

shared and supported by all stake holders demonstrating the ability to ____a) Collaboratively develop and implement a shared vision and mission; ____b) Use data in the decision making process to identify goals and assess organizational effectiveness; ____c) Apply leadership theories, beliefs, and values to policy and practice; and ____d) Promote continuous and sustainable improvement. 2. Advocate, nurture, and sustain a school culture and instructional program conducive to student learning and

staff professional growth demonstrating the ability to ____a) Nurture a culture of collaboration, trust, learning and high expectations; ____b) Ensure the development of a comprehensive, research based curriculum supported by technology; ____c) Ensure the development of an effective co-curriculum program; ____d) Create learning environments that meet the needs of special and exceptional populations; ____e) Ensure the supervision of instruction; ____f) Develop assessment and accountability systems to monitor student progress; and ____g) Develop instructional and leadership capacities through professional development. 3. Ensure the management of the organization, operation, and resources to establish a safe, efficient, and

effective learning environment demonstrating the ability to ____a) Monitor and evaluate the management and operational systems; ____b) Align and use human, fiscal and technological resources using proactive management strategies; ____c) Manage facilities, equipment, and support systems to ensure effective learning environments; ____d) Ensure laws and policies are effectively applied, protecting the rights and confidentiality of all. 4. Collaborate with families and stakeholders, responding to diverse community interests and

needs, and mobilize community resources demonstrating the ability to: ____a) Collect, analyze and apply community data pertinent to educational improvement; ____b) Develop effective consensus building, group processing, and conflict resolution skills; ____c) Build and sustain positive relationships with families, community partners and stakeholders; ____d) Promote understanding, appreciation and use of the community’s diverse resources; and ____e) Effectively apply laws to provide services for handicapped and special needs populations. 5. Act with integrity, fairness, and in an ethical manner demonstrating the ability to ____a) Model professional integrity, fairness, and ethics treating all persons fairly and with dignity; ____b) Safeguard the values of democracy, equity and diversity; and ____c) Consider moral and legal issues in decision making. 6. Understand, respond to, and influence the larger political, social, economic, and cultural context demonstrating the ability to ____a) Address the political, social, economic, and cultural context of the educational organization; ____b) Work with a board of education/directors understanding the political realities of such entities; ____c) Work with governing boards in the development of policies and practices; and ____d) Address trends, issues, and changes occurring in the school community. ___________________________________ ________________________________ Administrative Mentor’s Signature Candidate’s Signature

32

APPENDIX C DOCTORATE OF EDUCATION IN EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP

Candidate’s Reflection of Progress on Program Standards

____________________________ _____________________ ______________ Candidate’s Name Ed.D. Cohort Number Date

The School of Education has identified six objectives and numerous indicators that candidates in the Ed.D. Educational Leadership program are expected to demonstrate in the process of becoming confident and competent educaitonal leaders. Candidates are asked to score (during each colloquium) an "efficiency rating" of his or her perceived knowledge and abilities on each of the program objectives and indicators using the rubric below. 1 2 3 4 Unsatisfactory Basic Proficient Distinguished The Ed.D. candidate will 1. Facilitate the development, articulation, implementation, and stewardship of a vision of learning that is

shared and supported by all stake holders demonstrating the ability to ___ a) Collaboratively develop and implement a shared vision and mission; ___ b) Use data in the decision making process to identify goals and assess organizational effectiveness; ___ c) Apply leadership theories, beliefs, and values to policy and practice; and ___ d) Promote continuous and sustainable improvement. 2. Advocate, nurture, and sustain a school culture and instructional program conducive to student learning and

staff professional growth demonstrating the ability to ___ a) Nurture a culture of collaboration, trust, learning and high expectations; ___ b) Ensure the development of a comprehensive, research based curriculum supported by technology; ___ c) Ensure the development of an effective co-curriculum program; ___ d) Create learning environments that meet the needs of special and exceptional populations; ___ e) Ensure the supervision of instruction; ___ f) Develop assessment and accountability systems to monitor student progress; and ___ g) Develop instructional and leadership capacities through professional development. 3. Ensure the management of the organization, operation, and resources to establish a safe, efficient, and

effective learning environment demonstrating the ability to ___ a) Monitor and evaluate the management and operational systems; ___ b) Align and use human, fiscal and technological resources using proactive management strategies; ___ c) Manage facilities, equipment, and support systems to ensure effective learning environments; ___ d) Ensure laws and policies are effectively applied, protecting the rights and confidentiality of all. 4. Collaborate with families and stakeholders, responding to diverse community interests and

needs, and mobilize community resources demonstrating the ability to: ___a) Collect, analyze and apply community data pertinent to educational improvement; ___b) Develop effective consensus building, group processing, and conflict resolution skills; ___c) Build and sustain positive relationships with families, community partners and stakeholders; ___d) Promote understanding, appreciation and use of the community’s diverse resources; and ___e) Effectively apply laws to provide services for handicapped and special needs populations. 5. Act with integrity, fairness, and in an ethical manner demonstrating the ability to ___a) Model professional integrity, fairness, and ethics treating all persons fairly and with dignity; ___b) Safeguard the values of democracy, equity and diversity; and ___c) Consider moral and legal issues in decision making. 6. Understand, respond to, and influence the larger political, social, economic, and cultural context demonstrating the ability to ___a) Address the political, social, economic, and cultural context of the educational organization; ___b) Work with a board of education/directors understanding the political realities of such entities; ___c) Work with governing boards in the development of policies and practices; and ___d) Address trends, issues, and changes occurring in the school community.

33

APPENDIX D DOCTORATE OF EDUCATION IN EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP

Field Experience Contractual Agreement A Baker University candidate involved in the Ed.D. program must participate in two field experiences designed to help candidates transfer and make connections between theory and knowledge and real world leadership practices. A candidate must secure appropriate signatures from an educational administrator in the field who serves as the candidate’s mentor (Mentor) during the field experience and a University School of Education supervisor (Supervisor). Each of the two field experiences consists of a minimum of sixty (60) clock hours at the educational site. Field experience activities must relate to the leadership program objectives and/or performance indicators. Time is distributed across the six program standards. A candidate is required to have significant exposure to a wide array of administrative activities within the educational setting under the joint supervision of the Mentor and Supervisor. The Mentor must satisfy the criteria of a minimum of 3 years experience as a practicing administrator. The Mentor must be approved by the University’s School of Education. Signed agreements must be submitted to the Chair of Graduate Studies. ________________ ____________________________ requests to participate in Field (Date) (Printed Candidate Name) Experience (1 or 2) ____ _______- This experience will occur at ________________________ (Term or Year) (Educational Site) under the guidance of _____________________________. (Educational Administrative Mentor) Approval signatures _______________________________________ _____________________

Educational Administrative Mentor Date

_______________________________________ _____________________ Coordinator of DFE Date I understand the field experience activities may require additional hours not currently part of my contractual agreement in order to comply with the University’s field experience requirements. ______________________________________ __________________________________ (Candidate Signature) (Major Advisor Signature) Return to Dr. Brad Tate, Baker University School of Education, 8001 College Blvd., Overland Park, KS 66210.

34

APPENDIX E DOCTORATE OF EDUCATION IN EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP

PROFESSIONAL SKILLS SURVEY Instructor Ratings of Candidate’s Performance

Instructor ratings imply the candidate has demonstrated in the course taught the following performance in each of the professional skills areas listed in the rubric below.

Ed.D. Prof. Skills Survey http://www.taskstream.com/

Levels: Unacceptable Acceptable Distinguished

Criteria: value: 1 value: 2 value: 3 value: 4 value: 5

Score

Knowledge Base The student does not demonstrate knowledge of the content covered.

The student demonstrates limited knowledge of the content covered.

The student demonstrates knowledge of the content covered.

The student demonstrates a strong knowledge of the content covered (both written and oral) that aligns with educational research and/or best practices.

The student demonstrates an exceptional knowledge of the content covered and uses prior knowledge to build on new learnings in both written and oral work. Educational research and/or best practices are known and applied.

Written Communication

The student's written communications do not meet expectations for graduate study.

The student's written communications demonstrate limited skill.

The student demonstrates an adequate ability to express ideas, uses writing conventions with few errors, adequate organization and focus.

The student demonstrates the ability to express ideas clearly, using good writing conventions, organization, and focus.

The student demonstrates an exceptional ability to express ideas and to write in ways that are compelling for the reader. All writing is without flaw.

Oral Communication

The student's oral communications do not meet expectations for graduate study.

The student's oral communications demonstrate limited skill.

The student demonstrates an adequate ability to interact with others.

The student demonstrates the ability to communicate with others and a commitment to interact with, encourage, and empower others to communicate.

The student demonstrates an exceptional ability for communicating with others in ways that are appropriate for the setting. Speaking and listening skills are balanced.

Professional Responsibility and Organizational Skills

The student's organizational skills do not meet expectations for graduate study.

The student's organizational skills are somewhat limited.

The student demonstrates adequate ability to plan and meet time demands.

The student demonstrates the ability to plan, schedule, use resources, prioritize personal work load, and meet time demands.

The student demonstrates planning skills that exceed most. Uses of resources, prioritization of work load and time demands enhance and compliment the student's overall leadership abilities.

Problem Solving and Critical Thinking Skills

The student's critical thinking and problem solving skills do not meet expectations for graduate study.

The student's critical thinking and problem solving skills are somewhat limited.

The student demonstrates adequate ability to think critically and solve problems.

The student demonstrates the ability to think critically and use problem solving skills in the decision making process.

The student's critical thinking and problem solving skills in the decision making process are well-developed and advanced for a person at this stage of development.

35

APPENDIX F DOCTORATE OF EDUCATION IN EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP

ASSESSMENT OF PROGRAM OBJECTIVES BY COURSE

PROGRAM STRANDS Leadership Practices

Critical Thinking and Problem Solving Communication and Collaboration Beliefs, Values and Ethical Issues

Enriching Through Diversity

Program Objectives/Indictors

9000 Fnd

9001 Collab

9002 Div

9003 PLC

9004 Curr

9005 Law

9006 HR

9007 Mgt

9008 Eval

9010 Rsch

9011 Stat

1. Vision of learning shared by all 1A. Shared vision, mission S F F F 1B. Use data F F F F F S F 1C. Create plans F F F S 1D. Continuous improvement F S 1E. Monitor progress F F S 1F. Leadership positions S 2. Culture conducive to learning 2A. Culture of collaboration F S 2B. Curricular programs F F S F 2C. Learning environments F F S 2D. Supervise instruction F S 2E. Assessment systems F F S 2F. Leadership capacities S F F 2G. Maximize time F S 2H. Technologies F F F S F 2I. Monitor impact F S F 3. Effective learning environment 3A. Monitor operations F S 3B. Use resources S S 3C. Safety F S 3D. Distributed leadership S F F 3E. Focused learning time F S 3F. Legal issues F S F F 4. Collaborating with diverse community 4A. Community data F S F 4B. Diverse resources S F F F 4C. Relationships with families F S 4D. Community partners S 4E. Group process skills S F F F F F 4F. IDEA, 504, and PL 94-142 S F 5. Acting with integrity 5A. Academic accountability F S F 5B. Model ethical behavior S S F F 5C. Safeguard values S F 5D. Moral consequences F S F 6. Influencing larger context 6A. Advocate for children F S 6B. Influence decisions F F S F 6C. Emerging trends S F F 6D. Skills with governing boards S S S=Summative – course responsible for primary assessment of Program Objective and Indicator. F=Formative – course responsible for inclusion of content addressing Program Objective and Indicator. Content may also be integrated in other courses. Assessment of multiple Program Objectives may be combined into single artifacts within courses.

8/2008

36

APPENDIX G DOCTORATE OF EDUCATION IN EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP

Program Graduate Self Evaluation

Employee/Graduate’s Name________________ Employment position you now hold____________________ Date__/__/__

The School of Education has identified six objectives and numerous indicators that graduates of the Ed.D. Educational Leadership program are expected to demonstrate as they apply their skills to become confident, competent, educational leaders. Please self evaluate your performance on each indicator of the six standards identified below, using the following rubric. 1 2 3 4 NO Unsatisfactory Basic Proficient Distinguished Not Observed The Ed.D. graduate: 1. Facilitates the development, articulation, implementation, and stewardship of a vision of learning that is shared and supported

by all stakeholders. ___ a) Collaboratively develops and implements a shared vision and mission; ___ b) Uses data in the decision making process to identify goals, and assess organizational effectiveness; ___ c) Applies leadership theories, beliefs, and values to policy and practice; and ___ d) Promotes continuous and sustainable improvement.

2. Advocates, nurtures, and sustains a school culture and instructional program conducive to student learning and staff professional growth.

__ a) Nurtures a culture of collaboration, trust, learning and high expectations; __ b) Ensures the development of a comprehensive, research based curriculum supported by technology; ___ c) Ensures the development of an effective co-curriculum program; __ d) Creates learning environments that meet the needs of special and exceptional populations; __ e) Ensures the supervision of instruction; __ f) Develops assessment and accountability systems to monitor student progress; and __ g) Develops instructional and leadership capacities through professional development.

3. Ensures the management of the organization, operation, and resources to establish a safe, efficient, and effective learning environment.

__ a) Monitors and evaluates the management and operational systems; __ b) Aligns and uses human, fiscal and technological resources using proactive management strategies; __ c) Manages facilities, equipment, and support systems to ensure effective learning environments; __ d) Ensures laws and policies are effectively applied, protecting the rights and confidentiality of all.

4. Collaborates with families and stakeholders, responding to diverse community interests and needs, and mobilize community resources.

__ a) Collects, analyzes, and applies community data pertinent to educational improvement; __ b) Develops effective consensus building, group processing, and conflict resolution skills; __ c) Builds and sustains positive relationships with families, community partners and stakeholders; __ d) Promotes understanding, appreciation and use of the community’s diverse resources; and __ e) Effectively applies laws to provide services for handicapped and special needs populations.

5. Acts with integrity, fairness, and in an ethical manner. __ a) Models professional integrity, fairness, and ethics treating all persons fairly and with dignity; __ b) Safeguards the values of democracy, equity and diversity; and __ c) Considers moral and legal issues in decision making.

6. Understands, responds to, and influences the larger political, social, economic, and cultural context. __ a) Addresses the political, social, economic, and cultural context of the educational organization; __ b) Works with a board of education/directors understanding the political realities of such entities; __ c) Works with governing boards in the development of policies and practices; and __ d) Addresses trends, issues, and changes occurring in the school community. ___________________________________________ _________________ Program Graduate’s Signature Date Completed

37

APPENDIX H DOCTORATE OF EDUCATION IN EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP

Employer's Evaluation of Program Graduate Skills Employee/Graduate’s Name_________________________________________ Date___/___/___

The School of Education has identified six objectives and numerous indicators that graduates of the Ed.D. Educational Leadership program are expected to demonstrate as they apply their skills to become confident, competent, educational leaders. Employers are asked to evaluate the graduate’s performance on each indicator of the six standards identified below, using the following rubric. 1 2 3 4 NO Unsatisfactory Basic Proficient Distinguished Not Observed The Ed.D. graduate: 1. Facilitates the development, articulation, implementation, and stewardship of a vision of learning that is shared and supported

by all stakeholders. ___ a) Collaboratively develops and implements a shared vision and mission; ___ b) Uses data in the decision making process to identify goals and assess organizational effectiveness; ___ c) Applies leadership theories, beliefs, and values to policy and practice; and ___ d) Promotes continuous and sustainable improvement.

2. Advocates, nurtures, and sustains a school culture and instructional program conducive to student learning and staff professional growth.

__ a) Nurtures a culture of collaboration, trust, learning and high expectations; __ b) Ensures the development of a comprehensive, research based curriculum supported by technology; ___ c) Ensures the development of an effective co-curriculum program; __ d) Creates learning environments that meet the needs of special and exceptional populations; __ e) Ensures the supervision of instruction; __ f) Develops assessment and accountability systems to monitor student progress; and __ g) Develops instructional and leadership capacities through professional development.

3. Ensures the management of the organization, operation, and resources to establish a safe, efficient, and effective learning environment.

__ a) Monitors and evaluates the management and operational systems; __ b) Aligns and uses human, fiscal and technological resources using proactive management strategies; __ c) Manages facilities, equipment, and support systems to ensure effective learning environments; __ d) Ensures laws and policies are effectively applied, protecting the rights and confidentiality of all.

4. Collaborates with families and stakeholders, responding to diverse community interests and needs, and mobilize community resources.

__ a) Collects, analyzes, and applies community data pertinent to educational improvement; __ b) Develops effective consensus building, group processing, and conflict resolution skills; __ c) Builds and sustains positive relationships with families, community partners and stakeholders; __ d) Promotes understanding, appreciation and use of the community’s diverse resources; and __ e) Effectively applies laws to provide services for handicapped and special needs populations.

5. Acts with integrity, fairness, and in an ethical manner. __ a) Models professional integrity, fairness, and ethics treating all persons fairly and with dignity; __ b) Safeguards the values of democracy, equity and diversity; and __ c) Considers moral and legal issues in decision making.

6. Understands, responds to, and influences the larger political, social, economic, and cultural context. __ a) Addresses the political, social, economic, and cultural context of the educational organization; __ b) Works with a board of education/directors understanding the political realities of such entities; __ c) Works with governing boards in the development of policies and practices; and __ d) Addresses trends, issues, and changes occurring in the school community. ___________________________________________ _________________ Employer or Employer Designee Signature Date Completed

38

               

 

APPENDIX I DOCTORATE OF EDUCATION IN EDUCATIONAL

LEADERSHIP Program Required Experiences in Technology         

                       

Foun

datio

ns o

f Edu

catio

nal L

eade

rshi

p 90

00

Col

labo

rativ

e Le

ader

ship

in C

omm

unity

Con

text

900

1

Lead

ing

Spec

ial a

nd D

iver

se S

tude

nt P

opul

atio

ns 9

002

Dev

elop

ing

Prof

essi

onal

Lea

rnin

g C

omm

uniti

es 9

003

Cur

ricul

um, L

earn

ing,

and

Inst

ruct

ion

9004

Lega

l, Po

licy,

and

Eth

ical

Issu

es in

Lea

ders

hip

9005

Hum

an R

esou

rces

Man

agem

ent 9

006

Man

agem

ent o

f Fin

ance

s, Fa

cilit

ies,

and

Res

ourc

es 9

007

Prog

ram

Pla

nnin

g an

d Ev

alua

tion

9008

Stat

istic

al A

naly

sis 9

010

Met

hods

of I

nqui

ry a

nd R

esea

rch

9011

1. Email

2. Word Processing

3. Spreadsheets

4. Presentation Software   

5. Electronic Discussion Boards

6. Remote Connections

7. Web-Based Research

8. Web-Based Social Networking

9. Student Data Systems

10. Web-Based Course Management

11. Digital Meeting Software

12. Uploading Data

13. Other voip SPSS

                                                                                                                                                                                          

This graphic presents current technology requirements in various Ed.D. courses as reported by the instructor and included in various syllabi. There are 12 required experiences and one "other" category allowing individualized reporting for specific additional experiences. With the most frequently required experiences first, the rank order is: Email, Word Processing, Web-Based Research, Web-Based Course Management, Uploading Data, Presentation Software, Electronic Discussion Boards, Student Data Systems, Remote Connections, Spreadsheets, Web-Based Social Networking, Digital Meeting Software, and specific applications such as "voice over internet protocol" and the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. Additional experiences may be required, or some may be dropped, as technology changes and new strategies emerge. All candidates experience the 12 requirements multiple times during coursework for the degree. For this purpose only, definitions follow. Email: messages sent via a network; Word Processing: programs for creating, editing, and printing a document; Spreadsheets: programs in which numbers in grids can be manipulated; Presentation Software: slideshow applications; Electronic Discussion Boards: online discussion sites or chained discussion links; Remote Connections: accessing data or applications via login to another desktop; Web-Based Research: researching a subject via the internet; Web-Based Social Networking: sharing activities or interests online; Digital Meeting Software: virtual meeting via the internet; Uploading Data: sending data from a local to a remote system.

39

APPENDIX J BIBLIOGRAPHY OF PEDAGOGICAL KNOWLEDGE BASE

The following bibliography provides support for the instructional strategies that are promoted and modeled by department faculty. In order to match the format of the Baker University School of Education's Recommended Strategies and Best Practices document, the advocated instructional strategy will be listed with supporting bibliographical material underneath.

Active participation/engaging the learner Gardner, H., & Hatch, T. (1989). Multiple intelligences go to school: Educational implications of the theory of multiple

intelligences. [Electronic version]. Educational Researcher, 18(8), 4-9. Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. T. (1987). Learning together and alone. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Kagan, S. (1989). Cooperative learning : Resources for teachers. San Juan Capistrano, CA: Published by Resources for

Teachers. Karr, I. (2002). Busy, noisy, and powerfully effective: classroom learning tools for the college classroom. (2nd ed.). Elyria, OH:

INFO-TEC. Kroll, L. & LaBoskey, V. (1996). Practicing what we preach: Constructivism in a teacher education program. Action in

Teacher Education, 18 (2), 63-72 Slavin, R. E. (1990). Cooperative learning : Theory, research, and practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Slavin, R. E. (1994). A practical guide to cooperative learning. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative learning (2nd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Slavin, R. E. (2002). Educational psychology : Theory and practice (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Staley, C. C. (2003). 50 ways to leave your lectern : Active learning strategies to engage first-year students. Belmont, CA:

Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

Assessment, standardized grading, and standardized testing Marzano, R. J. (2000). Transforming classroom grading. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum

Development. Popham, W. J. (2003). What every teacher should know about educational assessment. Boston, MA: Pearson Education. Salvia, J. & Ysseldyke, J. (1991). Assessment (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Co. Wormeli, R. (2006). Fair isn't always equal : Assessing & grading in the differentiated classroom. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.

Classroom management Charles, C. M. (2005). Building classroom discipline (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson/A & B. Curwin, R. & Mendler, A. (1999). Discipline with dignity. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum

Development. Emmer, E. T., Evertson, C. M., & Worsham, M. E. (2003). Classroom management for secondary teachers (6th ed.). Boston,

MA: Allyn and Bacon. Levin, J. & Nolan, J. (2003). What every teacher should know about classroom management. Boston, MA: Pearson Education. Long, J. & Williams, R. (2005). Making it till Friday : Your guide to successful classroom management (5th ed.). Hightstown,

NJ: Princeton Book Co. Marzano, R. J. (2003). Classroom management that works research-based strategies for every teacher. Alexandria, VA:

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Curriculum design Erickson, H. L. (2002). Concept-based Curriculum and Instruction. Corwin Press. Wiggins, G. P. & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum

Development. Wolf, P. & Christensen Hughes, J. (2008). Curriculum Development in Higher Education: Faculty-Driven Processes and

Practices: New Directions for Teaching and Learning series Number 112. Jossey-Bass Publishers. English language learners

Ariza, E. N. (2006). Not for ESOL teachers : What every classroom teacher needs to know about the linguistically, culturally, and ethnically diverse student. Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon.

Faltis, C. (2006). Teaching English language learners in elementary school communities: A joinfostering approach (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/ Merrill/Prentice Hall.

Gibbons, P. (2002). Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning: Teaching second language learners in the mainstream classroom. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Gregory, G. & Chapman, C. (2007). Differentiated instructional strategies : One size doesn't fit all (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

40

Herrell, A. & Jordan M. (2008). Fifty strategies for teaching English language learners (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.

Hill, J. & Flynn, K. (2006). Classroom instruction that works with English language learners. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Ovando, C., Combs, M., & Collier, V. (2006). Bilingual and ESL classrooms : Teaching in multicultural contexts (4th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

Reiss, J. (2008). 102 content strategies for English language learners : Teaching for academic success in grades 3-12. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill/Prentice Hall.

Rothenberg, C. & Fisher, D. (2007). Teaching English language learners : A differentiated approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.

High expectations

Sadker, M. & Sadker, D. (1991). Teachers, schools, and society (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Higher education Diamond, R. M. (2008). Designing and Assessing Courses and Curricula: A Practical Guide (3rd ed.). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Higher level thinking Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives; the classification of educational goals (1st ed. ed.). New York, NY:

Longmans, Green. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: The Macmillan company.

Instructional strategies and outcomes

Blankstein, A. M. (2004). Failure is not an option: 6 principles that guide student achievement in high-performing schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Blevins, W. (1998). Phonics from A to Z: A practical guide. New York, NY: Scholastic Professional Books. Blevins, W. (2001a). Building fluency: Lessons and strategies for reading success. New York, NY: Scholastic. Blevins, W. (2001b). Teaching phonics and words study in the intermediate grades. New York, NY: Scholastic. Buehl, D. (2001). Classroom strategies for interactive learning (2nd ed.). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Carin, A. & Bass, J. (2001). Teaching science as inquiry (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice-Hall. Danielson, C. (2007). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for

Supervision and Curriculum Development. Gregory, G & Chapman, C. (2007). Differentiated instructional strategies: One size doesn’t fit all (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,

CA: Corwin Press. Hohn, R. L. (1995). Classroom learning & teaching. White Plains, NY: Longman Publishers USA. Hunter, M. C. (1982). Mastery teaching (1st ed.). El Segundo, CA: TIP Publications. Jacobs, J. S. & Tunnell, M. O. (2004). Children’s literature, briefly. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Johns, J. & Lenski, S. (2001). Improving reading: Strategies and resources (3rd ed.). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt. Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D., & Pollock, J. (2001). Classroom instruction that works: Research-based strategies for increasing

student achievement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in schools translating research into action. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and

Curriculum Development. Marzano, R. J. (2004). Building background knowledge for academic achievement research on what works in schools.

Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Maxim, G. (2003). Dynamic social studies for elementary classrooms (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill. McLaughlin, M. & Allen, M. (2002). Guided comprehension in action: Lessons for grades 3-8. Newark, Del: International

Reading Association. Readance, J. E., Bean, T. W. & Baldwin, R. S. (2004). Content area literacy: an integrated approach. Dubuque, IA:

Hendall/Hunt. Ridley, D. (2008). The literature review: A step-by-step guide for students. Los Angeles: Sage. Ryan, K. & Cooper, J. (1995). Those who can, teach (7th ed.). Boston. MA: Houghton Mifflin. Schmoker, M. J. (2006). Results now: How we can achieve unprecedented improvements in teaching and learning. Alexandria,

VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Tomlinson, C. A. & McTighe, J. (2006). Integrating differentiated instruction & understanding by design: Connecting content

and kids. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development Van de Walle, J. A. (2007). Elementary and middle school mathematics: Teaching developmentally (6th ed.). Boston, MA:

Pearson /Allyn and Bacon. Wormeli, R. (2003). Day one & beyond: Practical matters for new middle-level teachers. Portland, ME: Stenhouse Publishers.

Leadership

Andrews, A. (2002). The traveler’s gift. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers.

41

Arbinger Institute. (2002). Leadership and self-deception: Getting out of the box. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler. Barth, R. S. (1990). Improving schools from within: Teachers, parents, and principals can make the difference (1st ed.). San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Bradley, L. H. (1985). Curriculum Leadership Beyond Boilerplate Standards. Prentice Hall Trade. Collins, J. (2001). Good to great: why some companies make the leap….and others don’t. New York, NY: HarperCollins

Publisher, Inc. Covey, S. R. (2004a). The 7 habits of highly effective people: Restoring the character ethic. New York, NY: Free Press. Covey, S. R. (2004b). Stephen R. covey live. the 8th habit from effectiveness to greatness. United States: Better Life Media, Inc. Deal, T. E. & Peterson, K. D. (2005). Shaping School Culture. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Giuliani, R. W. (2002). Leadership (1st ed.). New York, NY: Hyperion. Glanz, J. G. (2006). What Every Principal Should Know About Operational Leadership. Corwin Press. Glickman, C. D. (2002). Leadership for learning how to help teachers succeed. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision

and Curriculum Development. Gray, D. L. & Smith A. E. (2007). Case Studies in 21st Century School Administration, (1st ed.). Sage Publications, Inc. Heifetz, R. A. (1994). Leadership without easy answers. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. James, R. (2005). Inclusive Leadership. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc. Lindley, F. A. (2009). The Portable Mentor: A Resource Guide for Entry-Year Principals and Mentors, (2nd ed.). Corwin Press. Lunenburg, F. C. & Ornstein, A. C. (2003). Educational Administration: Concepts and Practices.

Florence, KY: Wadsworth Publishing. Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. (2005). School leadership that works: From research to results. Alexandria, VA;

Aurora, Col: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development; Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning.

McNally, D. (1994). Even eagles need a push: Learning to soar in a changing world. New York, NY: Dell Pub. Mutter, D. W., & Parker, P. J. (2004). School Money Matters: A Handbook for Principals. Alexandria, VA: Association for

Supervision and Curriculum Development. Phillips, D. T. (1992). Lincoln on leadership: Executive strategies for tough times. New York, NY: Warner Books. Schlechty, P. C. (2005). Creating great schools: Six critical systems at the heart of educational innovation (1st ed.). San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Smith, R. E. (2008). Human Resources Administration: A School-Based Perspective, (4th ed.). Eye on Education. Strike, K. (2005). The Ethics of School Administration. Teachers College Press. Wheatley, M. J. (1992). Leadership and the new sciences. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers Inc.

Learning communities

Blankstein, A. M. (2004). Failure is not an option: 6 principles that guide student achievement in high-performing schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

DuFour, R. & Eaker, R. E. (1998). Professional learning communities at work: Best practices for enhancing student achievement. Bloomington, IN; Alexandria, VA: National Education Service; ASCD.

DuFour, R., Eaker, R. E., & DuFour, R. B. (2005). On common ground: The power of professional learning communities. Bloomington, IN: National Educational Service.

DuFour, R., Eaker, R. E., & DuFour, R. B. (2006). Learning by Doing, A Handbook for Professional Learning Communities. Solution Tree.

DuFour, R., Eaker, R. E., & DuFour, R. B. (2008). Revisiting Professional Learning Communities at Work. Solution Tree.

Senge, P. M. (2000). Schools that learn: A fifth discipline fieldbook for educators, parents, and everyone who cares about education (1st Currency pbk. ed.). New York, NY: Doubleday.

Literature

Fisher, D., Brozo, W. G., Ivey, G., & Ivey, N. (2007). 50 Content Area Strategies for Adolescent Literacy. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Allyn & Bacon.

Galvon, J. (2005). The literature review: A step-by-step guide for students. Los Angeles, CA: Pyrczak Publications.

Tompkins, G. E. (1998). 50 Literacy Strategies. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Topping, D., & McManus, R. (2002). Real Reading, Real Writing Content-area Strategies. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Miscellaneous

Armstrong, D., Henson, K., & Savage, T. (2005). Teaching today: An introduction to education (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.

42

Blankenstein, A. M. (2004). Failure is Not an Option. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the

Advancement of Teaching. Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University. Bryson, B. (2004). Bryson’s Dictionary of Troublesome Words: A Writer’s Guide to Getting It Right. Broadway. Covey, S. (2000). Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, (1st ed.). Free Press. Dalton, M. M. (2004). The hollywood curriculum: Teachers in the movies (Rev. ed.). New York, NY: P. Lang. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York, NY: Macmillan. Eggen, P. & Kauchak, D. (2004). Educational psychology: Windows on classrooms (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall. Erickson, H. L. (2000). Stirring the Head, Heart, and Soul. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Gardner, H. (1991). The unschooled mind: how children think and how schools should teach. New York, NY: Harper Collins

Publishers, Inc. Glasser, W. (1991). The quality school: managing students without coercion (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Harper and Row. Goodlad, J. (1994). What schools are for (2nd ed.). Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation. Hacker, D. (2006). A Writer’s Reference. Bedford/St. Martin's. Intrator, S. M. & Scribner, M. (2003). Teaching with fire: Poetry that sustains the courage to teach (1st ed.). San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass. Jones, F. (2007). Tools for Teaching. Fredric H. Jones & Associates. Kohl, H. R. (1984). Growing minds: On becoming a teacher (1st ed.). New York, NY: Harper & Row. Marzano, R. J. (2001). A Handbook for Classroom Instruction that Works. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and

Curriculum Development. Marzano, R. J. (2007). The Art & Science of Teaching. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum

Development. Porter, B,, Reardon, M., and Singer-Nourie, S. (1998). Quantum Teaching. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Allyn

& Bacon. Rath, T. (2007). Strengths Finder 2.0. Washington, D.C. Gallup Press. Sanders, J. R. & Sullins, C. (2006). Evaluating School Programs (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin

Press. Wong, H. & Wong, R. (1998). The first days of school: How to be an effective teacher (2nd ed.). Mountainview, CA: Harry K.

Wong Publications. Young, I. P. (2008). The Human Resources Function in Educational Administration. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice

Hall.

Modeling Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Multicultural education/equity Banks, J. A., Banks, C., & McGee, A. (2004). Handbook of research on multicultural education (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass. Brown, S. & Kysilka, M. (2003). What every teacher should know about multicultural and global education. Boston, MA:

Pearson Education. Davis, B. (2005). How to Teach Students Who Don’t Look Like You. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication. Delpit, L. D. (1996). Other People’s Children. New York, NY: New Press. Delpit, L. D. (2002). The skin that we speak: Thoughts on language and culture in the classroom. New York, NY: New Press. Garbarino, J. (1999). Lost boys: Why our sons turn violent and how we can save them. New York, NY: Free Press. Gruwell, E. (1999). The freedom writers diary: How a teacher and 150 teens used writing to change themselves and the world

around them (Movie tie-in ed.). New York, NY: Broadway Books. Kozol, J. (1991). Savage Inequalities: children in America’s schools. New York, NY: Crown Publishers. Landsman, J & Lewis, C. (2006). White Teachers, Diverse Classrooms. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing. Payne, R. K. (1998). A framework for understanding poverty (Rev. ed.). Highlands, TX: Aha! Process. Sadker, M. & Sadker, D. (1995). Failing at fairness: How our schools cheat girls (1st Touchstone ed.). New York, NY:

Touchstone.

Outcomes based education Spady, W. G. (1994). Outcomes based education: critical issues and answers. Arlington, VA: American Association of

School Administrators.

43

Parent/community involvement Chrislip, D. & Larson, C. (1994). Collaborative leadership: How citizens and civic leaders can make a difference (1st ed.). San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Good, T. & Brophy, J. (1973). How parent-teacher conferences build partnerships. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa.

Research

Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2008). Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2008). Strategies of qualitative inquiry (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage. Gall, J., Gall M., & Borg, W. (2005). Applying educational research: a practical guide (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson

Education, Inc. Glanz, J. (2003) Action Research: An Educational Leader’s Guide to School Improvement. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon

Publishers, Inc Johnson, A. P. (2003). What every teacher should know about action research. Boston, MA: Pearson Education. Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2008). Educational research: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed approaches (3rd ed.)

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Lichtman, M. (2006). Qualitative research in education: A user’s guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Lunenburg, F. C., & Irby, B. J. (2008). Writing a successful thesis or dissertation: Tips and strategies for students in the social

and behavioral sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in schools translating research into action. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision

and Curriculum Development. Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. An expanded sourcebook: Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Roberts, C. (2004). The dissertation journey: A practical and comprehensive guide to planning, writing, and defending your

dissertation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Sagor, R. (1993). How to Conduct Collaborative Action Research. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum

Development. Schmuck, R. (2006). Practical Action Research for Change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

School improvement

Danielson, C. (1996). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Danielson, C. (2002). Enhancing student achievement: A framework for school improvement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium. (1992). Model standards for beginning teacher licensing, assessment, and development: A resource for state dialogue. Washington, D.C.: Council of Chief State School Officers.

Kansas State Board of Education. (2006). Teaching standards for Kansas teachers. Topeka, KS: Author. O'Shea, M. R. (2005). From standards to success : A guide for school leaders. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and

Curriculum Development.

School law Schimmel, D., Fischer, L., & Stellman, L. (2007). School Law: What Every Educator Should Know. Pearson Education. Stader, D. (2006). Law and Ethics in Educational Leadership. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Special needs

Annual Editions (1999-2000 through 2006-2007). Educating Exceptional Children. Guilford, CT: McGraw Hill-Duskin. Coil, C. (2007). Successful Teaching in the Differentiated Classroom. Marion, IL: Pieces of Learning. Exceptional Parent. (2003). Exceptional Parent 2003 Resource Guide, 34 (1). Marion, OH: Psy-ED Corp. Hallahan, D. P. & Kauffman, J. M. (2003). Exceptional learners : Introduction to special education (9th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn

and Bacon. Lavoie, R. (1990). Understanding learning disabilities: how difficult can this be? [Video]. Alexandria, VA: PBS Video. Lavoie, R. (1994). Learning disabilities and social skills: last one picked…first one picked on. [Video]. Alexandria, VA: PBS

Video. Levine, M. D. (2002). A mind at a time. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. Mercer, C. & Mercer, A. (2005). Teaching students with learner problems (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson

Education, Inc. Orenstein, M. (2001). Smart but stuck : Emotional aspects of learning disabilities and imprisoned intelligence (Rev. ed.). New

York, NY: Haworth Press.

44

Pelzer, D. J. (1995). A child called 'it'. Health Communications. Pelzer, D. J. (1997). The lost boy: A foster child’s search for the love of a family.. Health Communications. Pelzer, D. J. (1999). A man named Dave: A story of triumph and forgiveness. New York, NY: A Plume Book of Penguin

Putnam, Inc. Salend, S. J. (2005). Creating inclusive classrooms : Effective and reflective practices for all students (5th ed.). Upper Saddle

River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill/Prentice Hall. Silver, H. (2000) So Each May Learn: Integrating Learning Styles and Multiple Intelligences. Alexandria, VA: Association for

Supervision and Curriculum Development. Skrtic, T. M., Harris, K. R., and Shriner, J. G. (2005). Special Education Policy and Practice, Accountability, Instruction and

Social Challenges. Love Publications Company. Tomlinson, C. A. (1999) The Differentiated Classroom: Responding to the Needs of All Learners. Alexandria, VA: Association

for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Tomlinson, C. A. (2003) Fulfilling the Promise of the Differentiated Classroom: Strategies and Tools. Alexandria, VA:

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Standards Essex, N. L. (2006). What every teacher should know about no child left behind. Boston, MA: Pearson. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1996). Professional standards for teaching mathematics. Virginia: NCTM.

Technology

Conn, K. (2002). The Internet and the Law: What Educators Need to Know. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Hayes Jacobs, H. (1997). Mapping the Big Picture. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Johns Hopkins University Center for Technology in Education. (2006). The Johns Hopkins University digital portfolio and

guide. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc. Kilbane, C. & Milman, N. (2003a). What every school leader should know about digital teaching portfolios. Boston, MA:

Pearson Education. Kilbane, C. & Milman, N. (2003b). What every teacher should know about creating digital teaching portfolios. Boston, MA:

Pearson Education. November, A. (2001). Empowering students with technology. Arlington Heights, IL: Skylight Professional Development. Recesso, A. & Orrill, C. (2008). Integrating technology into teaching. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.