Dr. Luise P. McCarty, Project Director Fall 2002 Dr. McCarty, then Associate Dean of Graduate Studies for the School of Education, invited a group of professors to join an advisory board with the purpose of responding to the Invitation to Participate in the Carnegie Initiative on the Doctorate project. Simultaneously, she asked her graduate assistant, Debora H. Ortloff, to put together a similar leadership team comprised of doctoral students. The initial discussion centered around participation in the project and whether it would, in the end, be beneficial. Below you will find a link to the minutes from the first faculty leadership meeting. They characterize the ambivalence with which the team approached the project. Ultimately, the faculty leadership team, with input from the gradute student leadership team, decided to submit a letter of intent to the project. Below you will find a link to this document. Letter of Intent Minutes from the first CID faculty leadership team meeting

Successes and Failures: Fall 2002 The initial leadership team was carefully chosen to represent all five of the department areas in our large school of education. Dr. McCarty called upon some of the most prominant professors in the school, including former Deans, full professors, some holding endowed chairs because of their status and experience in the school. Likewise department chairs were asked to nominate Ph.D. students who, they believed, would well represent the department and be able to garner support from other graduate students. This definitely created an initial power base for the committee and school-wide visibility for the project. However, there were several downsides to the composition of the leadership team. Most signifigantly, nearly all of the full professors are white, American and male. In order to have powerful faculty on board, we unintentionally had excluded proportional representation from women, minorities and international professors. We corrected this oversight in the following semester by inviting additional professors to join the leadership team of 12 professors, but there continued to be a distinct power differential. Our student leadership team, consisting of 12 students, was more representative and was completely integrated with the faculty team. However, logistically, it was also extremely difficult to accomodate the schedules of such a large committee of 24 people and this ultimately slowed our progress.

Challenges: Fall 2002 1. The initial challenge was to convince the advisory board that it would be beneficial for us to submit an application to participate in CID. Noone really questioned the need to engage in a process of reform, the question was whether the CID project would be too constraining rather than supporting such a process. However, the Carnegie Initiative coincided with a school-wide process of establishing a new mission. Improving the quality of graduate education became one of five goals to be pursued by the school over the next five years. The timing was advantageous also since reforms of the undergradfuate teacher education program and compliance with NCATE had consumed faculty attention over the previous 5-10 years. One professor remarked: "With all the time spent on undergraduate education and NCATE, there has been no time for this conversation." 2. Early on we realized that our large school of education, with about 640 doctoral students, 450 master's students,and an undergradute student enrollment of 2000, would be both an asset and a serious obstacle to reform. While the initial "Invitation to Participate" focused on Curriculum and Instruction and Educational Psychology within the field of education, our leadership teams felt very strongly that should we be selected to participate in CID, it would be as a whole school. A strong tradition of faculty governance and decentralized, programmatic autonomy permeate our school and the university. At the graduate level, faculty determine curricula and degree programs and then seek approval fromt he university graduate school. The challenge was to respect these traditions and values while, at the same time, exerting pressues to engage in conversations about reform of doctoral education across programs and departments. By carefully selecting faculty and student leaders, representing various degree programs and constituents, including minority and international students and faculty, we hoped that this large leadership team would create a climate of reform , set an agenda for our CID project, and stimulate conversations at the program level. We were faced with the task of considering 17 distinct program areas, each with different purposes and priorities in terms of doctoral education. As this timeline will reflect, this challenging situation resulted in a longer period of deliberation and consensus building and the need for administrative support and committed central leadership.

Spring 2003 The School of Education, as an entire school, is accepted into the CID project. See below for our initial acceptance letter. The leadership team continued to meet and discuss doctoral education reform in an attempt to develop long-term goals. During this time we organized several informational fora, including an video conference with Ohio State University (our assigned critical friend in the project), on topics which were deemed impotant to the progression of the project. In addition to the exchange with OSU, we held fora on mentoring and career pathways for international students. During this time we realized that very little data was available on doctoral education, such as years to degree,or or career paths of our alumni, and we identified various data sources which would be useful for continued deliberations. Below you will find a link to our goal sheet from February 2003. Goals from February 2003

Successes and Failures: Spring 2003 1. Upon our acceptance into the CID project, Dean Gerardo Gonzalez committed discretionary funds to the project. This included a budget for some travel expenses, several mini-retreats, organizational expenses, money for hourly help, and, most signifigantly, the appointment of a research assistant to the project for the following school year. Debora Ortloff was appointed research assistant for the next two years and she coordinated research activities of other graduate students. This research and administrative support became critical as the project progressed. Likewise, it formally included graduate student voice within the project leadership--a point which has been crucial to the success of CID activities here-- since doctoral students were the motor and remained the most committed to engaging in the actual work of pushing the reform process forward. 2. The goals for our reform activities, identified by February 2003, remained somewhat unfocused. It would take until December of 2003 to identify a major theme for the reform process. In hindsight, it would have been useful to have data collection be made a priority right from the beginning of the process. Over and over, when an issue was raised, the question would be posed: "Do we have evidence that this is a problem?" Yet it was also necessary to engage in these lengthy discussions and have all the voices heard to ensure continued involvement and engagement.