LAO Recommendations on Implementation of California State University Doctor of Education Degree Programs

POLICY BRIEF LAO Recommendations on Implementation Of California State University Doctor of Education Degree Programs MAC TAYLOR • L E G I S L A T I V E A N A L Y S T • JANUARY 21, 2011 R ecent legislation authorized the California State University (CSU) to independently offer Doctor of Education (Ed. D. ) degrees. A report prepared earlier this month by CSU, the Department of Finance (DOF), and the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) described and assessed the early imple- mentation of the new doctorate programs. In this brief, we provide our recom- mendations on the Legislature’s oversight of CSU’s doctoral programs. Our main recommendation is that the Legislature make further expansion of these programs contingent on specific authorization in the annual budget act. In 2005, new legislation authorized CSU to It was not possible, however, for the three organiza- independently award the Ed.D. This is a departure tions to agree on recommendations for improving from the differentiation of functions specified in or expanding these programs. As a result, the joint California’s 1960 Master Plan for Higher Education, report includes a description and evaluation of which accorded the University of California sole CSU’s program implementation, but stops short of authority to independently award the doctoral providing recommendations. degree. This brief provides the Legislative Analyst’s The legislation—Chapter 269, Statutes of 2005 independent recommendations to the Legislature (SB 724, Scott)—directs CSU, DOF, and the LAO regarding further implementation of CSU’s to jointly conduct a statewide evaluation of the education doctoral programs. We extend our new programs. A joint report was submitted to recommendations to encompass two additional the Legislature and Governor in January 2011 in CSU doctoral degree programs authorized in 2010. compliance with this requirement. This report is F J E indingsoF oint valuation available on the LAO website at www.lao.ca.gov. As discussed in a letter accompanying the The joint evaluation report concludes that the report, the joint evaluation process was valuable design of CSU’s education doctoral programs is and the parties reached consensus on most issues. consistent with the goals of Chapter 269 in most AN LAO REPORT respects. The programs are focused on education and more time is needed to meaningfully assess leadership, include significant participation from program outcomes. public school and community college partners, and As noted, the evaluation team did not arrive at are geared toward working professionals. joint recommendations to address these concerns. Compliance with financial provisions of the In the next section, we provide the LAO’s separate law is less clear. These provisions generally seek to recommendations to the Legislature. ensure that creation of the new programs not come lao R EcommEndations at the expense of other enrollment priorities. They require funding for the programs to come from Our primary recommendation centers on enrollment growth resources, not from existing limiting further expansion of CSU independent programs; limit subsidies for doctoral student doctoral programs, particularly in the absence enrollment; require that startup funds come from of enrollment growth funding. Additionally, we existing budgets without adversely affecting under- recommend that the Legislature require CSU graduate programs; and direct CSU to maintain to report on program outcomes in five years, by its existing ratio of graduate instruction to total which time several cohorts of students will have instruction. graduated. These recommendations are summa- These provisions clearly reflect the Legislature’s rized in the box on page 4. concern, expressed as SB 724 made its way through Place Conditions on Further Expansion. the legislative process, about the potential for the We recommend that the Legislature amend introduction of doctoral programs to reduce the Chapter 269 to make further expansion of CSU resources available for undergraduate enrollment. Ed.D. programs (beyond those in operation as of Chapter 269 does not address every circumstance June 30, 2011) contingent on specific authorization CSU may encounter, however. For example, it in the annual budget act. The legislation could also specifies that the programs should be funded from clarify the circumstances under which further enrollment growth, but does not specify how CSU expansion of independent education doctoral should proceed when the budget does not provide programs would be justified. for enrollment growth. Nor does it specify whether The availability of enrollment growth funding Ed.D. programs can be funded by redirecting should be one such consideration for autho- enrollment funds from other programs that have rizing new programs. When enrollment growth excess capacity. As a result, it is unclear whether funding is not available, the state could permit CSU’s expansion at five campuses in 2008 and CSU to expand doctoral program enrollment by 2009 without enrollment growth funding met the redirecting enrollment funds from other programs Legislature’s intent in enacting Chapter 269. that are undersubscribed, as has been the case Finally, the evaluation team concluded that in recent years with postbaccalaureate teacher it is too soon to assess the impact of the CSU credential programs. However, it should be noted Ed.D. programs on education reform and student that CSU could otherwise use the same funds to achievement, as directed in Chapter 269. Only a support undergraduate enrollment. In addition, few months have passed since the first students this could create future budgetary pressure when graduated with independent CSU Ed.D. degrees, the demand for these programs recovers. 2 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov AN LAO REPORT Even when enrollment growth funding or Similarly, we recommend amending the redirected funds are available, it is not necessarily reporting requirements in Chapters 416 and 425 the case that CSU should be permitted to proceed concerning the Doctor of Nursing Practice and with expansion to the remaining campuses. We Doctor of Physical Therapy degrees to (1) limit observed in our evaluation some drop-off in the joint report from LAO, DOF, and CSU to a enrollment demand following an initial surge of description and evaluation of CSU’s program interest, and the longer-term trend in demand implementation and its adherence to statutory remains unclear. Clearly, the sustainable level of requirements, and (2) require CSU to include an demand in each region, and alternative ways to outcome reporting process as described above, to address that demand, should be additional consid- be completed after at least three cohorts of students erations. A collaborative model being developed have graduated from the new programs. Given by CSU’s Bakersfield and Fresno campuses is a the difficulty experienced by the joint evaluation promising approach to meeting demonstrated team in arriving at joint recommendations on demand while reducing duplication of adminis- Ed.D. program implementation, we believe this trative and faculty resources and making better approach—which leaves each party free to offer use of existing capacity. Other multi-campus, independent recommendations—would better off-campus, and online options could similarly serve policymakers with a range of perspectives expand access in ways that are more cost-effective and insights. than creating new independent programs. The The proposed outcome evaluation, following Legislature could consider all of these factors in the report on implementation, would help guide determining whether to authorize expansion of the state’s decision about whether to expand the Ed.D. programs to new CSU campuses. programs beyond the three pilot campuses. More Require CSU to Report on Outcomes in Five broadly, outcome evaluation will be important Years. We recommend the Legislature require CSU as the state considers the evolving structure of its to identify a limited number of common indicators public higher education system. The expansion of that will be used to assess program effects on CSU’s degree-granting authority to include three system reform and student achievement, and doctoral programs is a departure from the Master report on program outcomes in 2016. By this date Plan, approved in response to changing workforce we anticipate that six cohorts of students will have needs. It will be important to monitor whether this graduated, and there will be more than 1,000 CSU modification to the university’s traditional role is independent Ed.D. graduates working in leadership effective in best meeting the state’s education and positions in California public schools and workforce needs. community colleges. This reporting requirement could be achieved through supplemental report language. www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 3 AN LAO REPORT i c s u ’ (csu’ ) n d p : mplEmEnting aliFoRnia tatE nivERsitys s Ew octoRal RogRams s l a ’ o R ummaRyoFthE EgislativE nalysts FFicE EcommEndations Place Conditions on Further Expansion of CSU Doctoral Programs · Make further expansion of CSU Doctor of Education degree programs contingent on specific authorization in the annual budget act. · Specify conditions for expansion, including: the availability of enrollment growth or redirected funding, a sustainable level of demand for programs, and consideration of alter- native ways to meet that demand (such as including multi-campus, off-campus, and online options). Require CSU to Report on Outcomes in Five Years · Require CSU to identify a limited number of common indicators to assess the effects of its education doctorate programs on system reform and student achievement, and report on outcomes in 2016. · Amend reporting requirements in Chapters 416 and 425 concerning the Doctor of Nursing Practice and Doctor of Physical Therapy degrees at CSU to: · Limit the joint report to a description and evaluation of compliance. · Include a similar outcome reporting process, to be completed after at least three cohorts of students have graduated from the new programs. LAO Publications This report was prepared by Judy Heiman, and reviewed by Steve Boilard. The Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) is a nonpartisan office which provides fiscal and policy information and advice to the Legislature. To request publications call (916) 445-4656. This report and others, as well as an E-mail subscription service, are available on the LAO’s website at www.lao.ca.gov. The LAO is located at 925 L Street, Suite 1000, Sacramento, CA 95814. 4 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov