Doctoral Programs Valuable, Hoyle, Torres Confirm8/31/07
Courtesy Texas A&M Marketing and Communications
Many of the nation's education leaders take exception to sentiments expressed in one widely circulated report and say they are convinced they received valuable real-world training from their doctoral programs at top-ranked universities. That's what two Texas A&M University education experts contend after surveying former students from six top educational administration programs - including Harvard, Stanford and Penn State - who are now in school leadership positions.
Those top-trained education leaders say their doctoral programs in educational administration remain relevant and of high quality. The doctoral graduates surveyed, who came from six of the nation's top 10 programs as ranked by U.S. News and World Report, praised their respective institutions.
John Hoyle and Mario Torres, faculty members in Texas A&M's Department of Educational Administration and Human Resource Development, launched the study last year in response to recent critiques of leadership preparation programs. Possibly the most publicized was a 2005 report, Educating School Leaders, by Arthur Levine, president of the Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation and president emeritus of Teachers College, Columbia University.
Hoyle and Torres spent two to three days on campus interviewing faculty and current students and gathered data such as what percentage of applicants were accepted into the programs and how much financial support the students received. The next phase of the research was interviews conducted with graduates from the six programs who are currently serving as school administrators in successful public schools.
"We were pleasantly surprised to find what we found," says Hoyle, a long-time professor at Texas A&M who studies educational trends. Torres is in his fourth year as an assistant professor at Texas A&M.
In the pair's recent study, some graduates reported gaps in their doctoral preparation that would enhance leadership outcomes, but most praised their experiences and tied them to their success in leading schools and school districts. They stated that their doctoral programs included intellectual rigor, stimulation of coursework and activities, faculty support and interactions among students and between students and faculty.
In addition to Harvard University, Stanford University and Pennsylvania State University, the institutions selected also included Ohio State University, the University of Wisconsin-Madison and Teachers College, Columbia University.
Hoyle and Torres presented their paper, "The Relationship Between Six Top-Ranked Educational Administration Doctoral Preparation Programs and Leadership Effectiveness of their Graduates in Public School Administration," at a national conference in early August. They also have sent copies to the interviewees and are submitting it for publication.
"There was very little research that graduate programs were really relevant, but the people we interviewed said there is no question about the relevance of those doctoral programs," says Hoyle. "We found, through good solid data, that they really did give high reviews to their programs."
Hoyle says he hopes the findings will help boost the reputations of the nation's 211 university doctoral programs in leadership education, and will benefit even those that aren't in the top tier. The pair is granting requests to make their questions and interview instruments available to their colleagues so they can evaluate schools in their own states.
|