2004 Ph.D. Cohort with Professors Tierney, Clark and Kezar Who are we? Ph.D. Program, Urban Educational Policy Rossier School of Education University Of Southern California CID Contact: Richard Clark, Ed.D. Waite Phillips Hall 601C (213) 740-2370 [email protected] CID Leadership Team Richard Clark, Professor Amanda Datnow, Associate Professor Stephen Quaye, 1st year Ph.D. Student Department CID Page This is a link to the department's page related to the CID. Rossier School of Education This is a link to the Rossier School of Education website. The Ph.D. Program page can be found under Academic Programs.

What do we want to accomplish in the CID? Goal: The objective of the USC Rossier School of Education (RSOE) Ph.D. program is to create a community of inquiry, one that helps students think metacognitively about their discipline, establish skills in modes of inquiry, and share knowledge through teaching, research, and dissemination. The program will be based on a common expectation that our graduates can create and share knowledge about improving the learning experience for all students, regardless of culture, linguistic diversity, socioeconomic status or ability. They will create knowledge about diversity, learning and accountability to guide educational practices. In consultation with colleagues around the country, our faculty has outlined a statement of standards for how those completing a Ph.D. from RSOE should be prepared to meet this expectation. Issues: The issues we would like to focus on with other education faculty and the CID are (1) how shall students provide evidence of competency; (2) how can faculty more effectively mentor our students; (3) how can students integrate into a robust intellectual community; and (4) how will we know if we succeed.

Faculty's Statement of Standards for the Ph.D. in Education The standards the faculty propose for an educated person who holds a Ph.D. from the Rossier School of Education are that: 1. An educated person is expected to have thought about the major ethical problems and dilemmas of the day in urban education. Candidates must be able to think about these problems in an intellectual manner so that they are able to arrive at their own conclusions. 2. An educated person must be able to think and write clearly and effectively. The faculty's assumption is that when candidates receive a Ph.D. they are able to communicate with precision, cogency and force orally and in writing. 3. An educated person must have an awareness of the differences in the ways that disciplines analyze and study phenomena. Accordingly, an educated person must have demonstrated competencies in quantitative and qualitative reasoning and methodology. 4. An educated person in the 21st century must have a sense of the worlds they inhabit. Rather than a narrow conception of knowledge, the faculty expect students to have become involved in multicultural contexts of learning through classroom teaching and field research that account for urban society in general and urban educational settings in particular. 5. An educated individual must be exposed to various academic disciplines and perspectives; however, faculty expect that candidates will ultimately develop expertise in a particular area of study.

What are we doing? How students provide evidence of competency: 1. The Ph.D. Screening Process takes place at the conclusion of the first year and serves as an initial measure of a student's progress in the program. 2. Qualifying Examination has been modified to include teaching and research portfolios. 3. Students participate in a series of Mini-conferences where they present their research. In the "Controversies in Learning and Instruction" course, students presented their papers to their peers in a mini-conference setting. Each student presented her or his paper on issues relevant to students' learning in a fifteen-minute presentation followed by questions from the audience. Students practiced their skills in explaining their research and addressing questions about it in a way that facilitated participants' understanding and knowledge of the topic at hand. How faculty can mentor students more effectively: Criteria for advising/mentoring PhD students have been established. Only faculty meeting the criteria will be eligible to advise Ph.D. students. The requirements are as follows: Be research active Mentor the advisee for the 20 hrs/week time covered by RSOE support Work with the advisee to publish and present papers at academic meetings Work with the advisee to develop a teaching portfolio General mentorship including progress with coursework and other academic matters Regular meeting time with advisee Inclusion of the advisee in a collaborative research group Secure funding for two years of the advisee's program How students are integrated into a robust intellectual community: Students participated in development of new core courses Presentations at ASHE, AERA and pre-AERA "mini-conferences" Co-authored published article with faculty Engaged in research with faculty advisors (20 hours per week) Served on faculty search and admissions committees Students participate in 3 cohorts - the Ph.D. core, the concentration with Ed.D students, and the Cognate representing multiple groups at USC Late summer off-site retreat for new admits and faculty. 2004 Cohort retreat was held at the USC Wrigley Institute in Catalina Monthly seminar series which began in Fall 2004 How we will know if we have succeeded: A multi-faceted assessment is currently being formulated by the faculty in collaboration with the Ph.D. students. Students from our previous Ph.D. program and students in our new Ph.D. will be surveyed. Data from both groups will be analyzed.

Introduction to One Implemented Innovation The matching of students and faculty advisors in the admissions process In the past, some students had inadequate advising and mentoring Now... Student give preference on application and we match accordingly, after consulting with faculty Faculty advisors make the commitment to closely mentor students in specific ways o Involve them in active research projects and in writing articles, conference papers, research proposals o Involve them in teaching for 1-2 semesters o Fund their stipend with research funds for 2 of 4 years Process of implementation Deliberate process - Based on data-gathering Issue/problem identified - Some students pair too late or pair with advisors who do not mentor them adequately Innovation selected - Matching students at the point of admission and asking faculty to make set of commitments Implementation of innovation - Fall 2004 Assessment plans o Asked faculty for input on process o Will gather feedback from new cohort of Ph.D. students

Introduction to an Exemplary or Innovative Element Commitment to furnishing Ph.D. students with ideal conditions for intellectual growth. We provide i. Full tuition coverage for all required coursework (63 units) ii. Monthly stipend iii. Health insurance iv. Annual travel to a national conference All students engage in research opportunities. Emphasis in placed on a program of research that leads to pre-graduation publications and presentation of papers at conference in preparation for a faculty career at a research university. Off-site pre-admission retreat with faculty and students Ph.D. program office serves as the resource center for students from admission through graduation.

Timeline Winter 2004: New Ph.D. program approved by the USC Provost Spring 2004. March, 2004: First Cohort of the new PhD program is admitted. August, 2004: Three-day pre-admission retreat at the USC Wrigley Institute on Catalina Island with faculty and the 2004 Cohort. August, 2004: Students are matched with faculty at point of admission. Students begin their research assistantships and receive full funding for all required coursework and stipend. This funding is guaranteed for 4 years. September - December, 2004: The Ph.D. program hosts Brown Bag Seminars. Speakers include Ph.D. faculty at RSOE, as well as, faculty from UCLA. Presentations include a wide range of topics in education followed by questions and answers. Ph.D. students, faculty and staff attend the seminars. September - November, 2004: Recruitment for 2005 Cohort. GOALS -- Applications: 150-200 [last year: 90]; Average GRE: 1300-1330 [last year: 1270]; Admit 8 students [last year: 7] All desiring faculty career; interest in urban ed policy. Waitlist 5 students [last year: 10]; Convert 8: 4 women, 4 men. 4 students of color (esp. Hispanic) [last year: 7 - 3 men, 4 women; 3 Black, 2 White, 2 Asian]. Concentrations: 3 in higher ed; 3 in ed admin or ed psych; 2 in ed psych or ed admin. [last year: 4 higher ed, 2 ed psych, 1 ed admin]. 4 fellowships [last year: 1 Diversity, 1 Provost fellowship]). October, 2004: Program evaluation plan in progress -Members of assessment development team identified. November, 2004: Students participate in Mini-Conference in preparation for annual ASHE conference. Ph.D. students with the Higher Education concentration attended the conference in Kansas City, MO. Additional mini-conferences will be held throughout the year. November, 2004: Faculty interested in advising PhD students in the 2005 Cohort submit applications. Only faculty meeting the criteria will be eligible to advise Ph.D. students. December, 2004: Application deadline for 2005 Cohort. January, 2005: Students meet with Program Chair to review coursework requirements and procedures for the Ph.D. Screening. January - April, 2005: Brown Bag Seminars continue. April, 2005: 2005 Cohort admitted. May, 2005: The Ph.D. Screening Process for the 2004 Cohort. August, 2005: 2005 Cohort matched with faculty. Attend off-site retreat and program orientation. August, 2005: 2004 Cohort begins Concentration courses with Ed.D. students September - November, 2005: Recruitment for 2006 Cohort. December, 2005: Application deadline for 2006 Cohort. Student Statistics - 2004 Cohort Catalina Retreat Agenda Prior to the start of the fall semester, the entering class embarks on a 3-day retreat with program faculty. Ph.D. Seminar Series