KENNESAW STATE UNIVERSITY
GRADUATE COURSE PROPOSAL OR REVISION,
Cover Sheet (10/02/2002)
Course Number/Program Name EDL 9883 Performance for Educational Executives: Politics,
Power, and Policy
Department
Department of Educational Leadership
Degree Title (if applicable)
EdD in Leadership for Learning
Proposed Effective Date
Fall 2011
Check one or more of the following and complete the appropriate sections:
XX New Course Proposal
Course Title Change
Course Number Change
Course Credit Change
Course Prerequisite Change
Course Description Change
Sections to be Completed
II, III, IV, V, VII
I, II, III
I, II, III
I, II, III
I, II, III
I, II, III
Notes:
If proposed changes to an existing course are substantial (credit hours, title, and description), a new course with a
new number should be proposed.
A new Course Proposal (Sections II, III, IV, V, VII) is required for each new course proposed as part of a new
program. Current catalog information (Section I) is required for each existing course incorporated into the
program.
Minor changes to a course can use the simplified E-Z Course Change Form.
Submitted by:
Faculty Member
Approved
_____
Date
Not Approved
Department Curriculum Committee Date
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Not Approved
Department Chair
Date
College Curriculum Committee
Date
College Dean
Date
GPCC Chair
Date
Dean, Graduate College
Date
Not Approved
Not Approved
Not Approved
Not Approved
Not Approved
Vice President for Academic Affairs Date
Approved
Not Approved
President
Date
KENNESAW STATE UNIVERSITY
GRADUATE COURSE/CONCENTRATION/PROGRAM CHANGE
I.
Current Information (Fill in for changes)
Page Number in Current Catalog
Course Prefix and Number
Course Title
Credit Hours
Prerequisites
Description (or Current Degree Requirements)
II.
Proposed Information (Fill in for changes and new courses)
Course Prefix and Number ___EDL 9883_____________________
Course Title: Performance for Educational Executives: Politics, Power, and
Politics______________________________________
Credit Hours Three (3) credit hours
Prerequisites Admission to the Doctoral Program in Leadership for Learning
Description (or Proposed Degree Requirements)
This course introduces the conceptualization of schooling as politics and is designed to
help students understand the political contexts and the institutional environment in which
educators operate. Through a general awareness of conceptual frameworks (such as
system framework, diffusion framework, values, demands and interest groups, micro and
macropolitics), used to examine the politics of education, students will obtain, assess, and
assemble data and interpret those data to discover connections and contradictions about
the concepts from the readings and literature relating to our current educational climate.
This course includes a performance-based field experience.
III.
Justification
The course is framed within Distributed School Leadership Practice (DSLP), one of the
leading authors of which is James Spillane of Northwestern University in Chicago, Illinois.
Early in 2006, Spillane rejected the commonly held notion that leadership was either the act
of a heroic individual or of several individuals who shared leadership responsibilities. In his
book, Distributed Leadership, Spillane postulates that “…leadership…is a practice…that is
the product of joint interactions of school leaders, followers and aspects of their situation
such as routines and tools” (p. 3).
The course is taught by faculty with expertise in school leadership, collaboration, and
diversity. Topics are presented in an integrated manner, such that school transformation is
seen as whole school reform initiative where performance-based practice is the hallmark
(Leithwood, Day, Sammons, Harris, & Hopkins, 2006) and the tenets of Distributed School
Leadership Practice (Spillane, 2006), therefore, are embedded within all activities.
Program design supports team building and connections among school districts (building
and system), universities, and beginning leadership candidates. This design is consistent
with the Bagwell College of Education goal of providing a collaborative framework for
developing expertise in teaching, learning, and leadership within the EdS and EdD program.
It is anticipated that participants will mirror this expectation in their future organizational
settings. Residency module activities are problem-based and assist individuals in developing
an internal focus and disposition to meet the challenges and opportunities within leadership
practice in their respective career paths and organizational settings.
Politics, Power, Policy and Performance for Educational Executives
Educational politics and policies permeate educational systems and decision making in
schools and school districts. The politics of education, with a focus on power and policy
that influences leadership performance, introduces doctoral candidates to the conceptual
framework, theories, and research methods used to study educational policy, including
institutional theory, neopluralist interest groups and advocacy coalitions, political culture,
critical theory, postmodernist/poststructuralist approaches to policy research, and current
policy trends at the state and national levels. As a result, candidates will gain skills in
identifying the roles, purposes, and decision-making authority of educational
stakeholders, including governmental agencies, policy issue networks, and interest groups
that affect educational policymaking. By understanding the policy making process and all
of its stages, candidates will develop the skills for analyzing policy alternatives, building
support for policies, developing implementation strategies, and forecasting outcomes.
IV.
Additional Information (for New Courses only)
Instructor:TBA
Text: Guthrie, J.W., & Schuermann, P. J. (2010). Successful School Leadership:
Planning, Politics, Performance and Power. eTextbook. Peabody College at
Vanderbilt University.
Prerequisites:
Admission to the Doctoral Program in Leadership for Learning
Objectives:
EDL Course Objectives (KSD)
To examine the relationship between
broader social, economic, and intellectual
trends and the chosen vehicles for school
reform. (KS)
To understand the different visions that
educators, policy-makers and the broader
public have for schools. (KS)
To determine the underlying assumptions
about schooling and the theories of how to
create good practice that serve as the basis
for these visions. (KS)
To interpret how broader social currents
direct or delimit the possibilities for school
reform.
To examine policy models and frameworks,
and their application to current policy issues
in the k-12 and higher education arenas.
(KS)
To offer a perspective on the role that
research plays in the policy process. (KSD)
To provide candidates with the opportunity
to interpret the context of policy
development for current policy issues. (KS)
To design and analyze policy (and to study
the design and analysis of policy) at various
organizational levels. (KS)
To develop knowledge of current
educational and social policy topics (e.g.,
No Child Left Behind, curricular reform,
high-stakes testing). (KS)
-
EdS/EdD
GLISI Leader
PTEU
Roles
Performance
Outcomes
Data Analysis
6
1
Relationship
Change
1
Learning and
Performance
Development
4
Change
ELCC/
PSC
Standards
BOR
Strands
4, 6
5
4, 5, 6,
7
6
7
5, 7
4
4
Process
Improvement
4, 6
Data Analysis
3, 4
2, 4
9
4, 9
6.
Performance
Change
6, 5
5
2, 4
Performance
6
4
8
Process
Improvement
6
1, 4, 6, 8
Instructional Method
The candidates and university supervisor will use GeorgiaVIEW Vista for
communication and course management. Please check daily for postings, mail, and
announcements. Instructional methods may include, but are not limited to:

Problem-Based Learning

Proficiency Examination

Cooperative Learning

Document-Based Inquiry

Case Study Analysis
Method of Evaluation
Evaluation:
Attendance
Reflective Journal
Policy Reform Assessment
Individual Assignment
Film Analysis
Group Project
Oral Presentation
Final Exam
5%
5%
20%
15%
15%
20%
5%
15%
Grading:
A= 90% -100%
V.
B= 80% - 89%
C= 70% - 79%
Resources and Funding Required (New Courses only)
Resource
Amount
Faculty
Other Personnel
Equipment
Supplies
Travel
New Books
New Journals
Other (Specify)
TOTAL
Funding Required Beyond
Normal Departmental Growth
n/a
F= 69% or lower
VI. COURSE MASTER FORM
This form will be completed by the requesting department and will be sent to the Office of the
Registrar once the course has been approved by the Office of the President.
The form is required for all new courses.
DISCIPLINE
COURSE NUMBER
COURSE TITLE FOR LABEL
(Note: Limit 30 spaces)
CLASS-LAB-CREDIT HOURS
Approval, Effective Term
Grades Allowed (Regular or S/U)
If course used to satisfy CPC, what areas?
Learning Support Programs courses which are
required as prerequisites
APPROVED:
________________________________________________
Vice President for Academic Affairs or Designee __
VII Attach Syllabus
EdD Program
I.
COURSE: EDL 9883 Performance for Educational Executives: Politics, Power, and Policy
Credit: 3 Credit Hours
II.
INSTRUCTOR:
Office:
Phone:
III.
IV.
E-Mail:
Office Hours:
CLASS MEETINGS
Dates: TBA
Day/Times: TBA
Bldg/Room: TBA
TEXTS & READINGS:
Required Text:
Guthrie, J.W., & Schuermann, P. J. (2010). Successful School Leadership: Planning, Politics,
Performance and Power. eTextbook. Peabody College at Vanderbilt University.
Supplemental Readings:
American Psychological Association (2010). Publications manual of the American
Psychological Association (6th ed). Washington, DC.: American Psychological
Association.
Readings as assigned
V.
COURSE CATALOG DESCRIPTION
This course introduces the conceptualization of schooling as politics and is designed to help
students understand the political contexts and the institutional environment in which educators
operate. Through a general awareness of conceptual frameworks (such as system framework,
diffusion framework, values, demands and interest groups, micro and macropolitics), used to
examine the politics of education, students will obtain, assess, and assemble data and interpret
those data to discover connections and contradictions about the concepts from the readings and
literature relating to our current educational climate. This course includes a performance-based
field experience.
VI.
JUSTIFICATION
The course is framed within Distributed School Leadership Practice (DSLP), one of the leading
authors of which is James Spillane of Northwestern University in Chicago, Illinois. Early in 2006,
Spillane rejected the commonly held notion that leadership was either the act of a heroic individual
or of several individuals who shared leadership responsibilities. In his book, Distributed
Leadership, Spillane postulates that “…leadership…is a practice…that is the product of joint
interactions of school leaders, followers and aspects of their situation such as routines and tools”
(p. 3).
The course is taught by faculty with expertise in school leadership, collaboration, and diversity.
Topics are presented in an integrated manner, such that school transformation is seen as whole
school reform initiative where performance-based practice is the hallmark (Leithwood, Day,
Sammons, Harris, & Hopkins, 2006) and the tenets of Distributed School Leadership Practice
(Spillane, 2006), therefore, are embedded within all activities.
Program design supports team building and connections among school districts (building and
system), universities, and beginning leadership candidates. This design is consistent with the
Bagwell College of Education goal of providing a collaborative framework for developing
expertise in teaching, learning, and leadership within the EdS and EdD program. It is anticipated
that participants will mirror this expectation in their future organizational settings. Residency
module activities are problem-based and assist individuals in developing an internal focus and
disposition to meet the challenges and opportunities within leadership practice in their respective
career paths and organizational settings.
Politics, Power, Policy and Performance for Educational Executives
Educational politics and policies permeate educational systems and decision making in schools
and school districts. The politics of education, with a focus on power and policy that influences
leadership performance, introduces doctoral candidates to the conceptual framework, theories,
and research methods used to study educational policy, including institutional theory,
neopluralist interest groups and advocacy coalitions, political culture, critical theory,
postmodernist/poststructuralist approaches to policy research, and current policy trends at the
state and national levels. As a result, candidates will gain skills in identifying the roles,
purposes, and decision-making authority of educational stakeholders, including governmental
agencies, policy issue networks, and interest groups that affect educational policymaking. By
understanding the policy making process and all of its stages, candidates will develop the skills
for analyzing policy alternatives, building support for policies, developing implementation
strategies, and forecasting outcomes.
VII.
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK SUMMARY
Collaborative Development of Expertise in Teaching, Learning & Leadership
The Professional Teacher Education Unit (PTEU) at Kennesaw State University is
committed to developing expertise among candidates in initial and advanced programs as
teachers and leaders who possess the capability, intent and expertise to facilitate high
levels of learning in all of their students through effective, research-based practices in
classroom instruction, and who enhance the structures that support all learning. To that
end, the PTEU fosters the development of candidates as they progress through stages of
growth from novice to proficient to expert and leader. Within the PTEU conceptual
framework, expertise is viewed as a process of continued
development, not an end-state. To be effective, teachers and educational leaders must
embrace the notion that teaching and learning are entwined and that only through the
implementation of validated practices can all students construct meaning and reach high
levels of learning. In that way, candidates at the doctoral level develop into leaders for
learning and facilitators of the teaching and learning process. Finally, the PTEU
recognizes values and demonstrates collaborative practices across the college and
university and extends collaboration to the community-at-large. Through this
collaboration with professionals in the university, the public and private schools, parents
and other professional partners, the PTEU meets the ultimate goal of assisting Georgia
schools in bringing all students to high levels of learning.
Use of Technology: Technology Standards for Educators are required by the
Professional Standards Commission. Telecommunication and information technologies
will be integrated throughout the program, and all candidates must be able to use
technology to improve student learning and meet Georgia Technology Standards for
Educators. During the courses, candidates will be provided with opportunities to explore
and use instructional media. They will master use of productivity tools, such as
multimedia facilities, local-net and Internet, and they will develop the confidence to
design multimedia instructional materials, and create WWW resources.
The students will be linked through WebCT Vista and via a listserv that will be utilized in
processing the comprehensive experiences of the doctoral program. The members of each
cohort will be linked in a similar way as they move through the program. The emerging
technologies will be utilized with the parallel expectation that participants demonstrate a
high degree of technological literacy in retrieving and sharing information and resources
Educational Specialist and Doctorate of Education
The knowledge, skills and dispositions (KSD’s) of the graduates of the Doctorate of
Education program in the Bagwell College of Education reflect the unique aspects of this
degree. Collaboratively developed by faculty from across the university and in
consultation with community/school partners, these outcomes and proficiencies delineate
the high expectations we have for graduates who will be Leaders for Learning. Clearly,
the proficiencies reflect the complex nature of student learning in advanced degree
programs leading to a terminal degree. Consequently, many of the proficiencies listed
below incorporate aspects of knowledge, skills and dispositions within a single
proficiency. These proficiencies are clearly linked to our conceptual framework, The
Collaborative Development of Expertise in Teaching, Learning and Leadership.
VIII. GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND PTEU PERFORMANCE OUTCOMES:
The Professional Teacher Education Unit prepares school leaders who understand
their disciplines and principles of pedagogy, who reflect on their practice, and
who apply these understandings to making decisions that foster the success of all
learners. As a result of the satisfactory fulfillment of the requirements of these
courses, participants will demonstrate outcomes that embody the constructs of
DSLP, the ten BOR Performance Strands, the ELCC standards, the PSC standards
for Residency, and the roles recommended by Georgia’s Leadership Institute for
School Improvement (GLISI). As this course is outcomes-driven, successful
individuals must provide evidence of meeting the following complementary
PTEU EdS/EdD Performance Outcomes:
1. Fosters an organizational culture that facilitates development of a shared
vision, school improvement and increased learning for all students.
2. Implements sustainable educational change and process improvement
3. Creates 21st century learning environments that advance best practices in
curriculum, instruction, and assessment.
4. Engages in applied research that supports data-driven planning and decision
making for the improvement of schools and learning.
5. Builds collaborative relationships, teams and community partnerships that
communicate and reflect distributed leadership for learning.
6. Embraces diversity by demonstrating intercultural literacy and global
understanding.
7. Facilitates professional learning and development that enhance and improve
professional practice and productivity.
8. Exercises professionalism and ethical practice.
http://www.gapsc.com/Rules/Current/EducatorPreparation/index.asp
http://www.npbea.org/ELCC/ELCCStandards%20_5-02.pdf
EDL Course Objectives (KSD)
To examine the relationship between
broader social, economic, and intellectual
trends and the chosen vehicles for school
reform. (KS)
To understand the different visions that
educators, policy-makers and the broader
public have for schools. (KS)
To determine the underlying assumptions
about schooling and the theories of how to
create good practice that serve as the basis
for these visions. (KS)
To interpret how broader social currents
direct or delimit the possibilities for school
reform.
To examine policy models and frameworks,
and their application to current policy issues
in the k-12 and higher education arenas.
(KS)
To offer a perspective on the role that
research plays in the policy process. (KSD)
To provide candidates with the opportunity
to interpret the context of policy
development for current policy issues. (KS)
To design and analyze policy (and to study
the design and analysis of policy) at various
organizational levels. (KS)
To develop knowledge of current
educational and social policy topics (e.g.,
No Child Left Behind, curricular reform,
high-stakes testing). (KS)
IX.
EdS/EdD
GLISI Leader
PTEU
Roles
Performance
Outcomes
Data Analysis
6
1
Relationship
Change
1
Learning and
Performance
Development
4
Change
ELCC/
PSC
Standards
BOR
Strands
4, 6
5
4, 5, 6,
7
6
7
5, 7
4
4
Process
Improvement
4, 6
Data Analysis
3, 4
2, 4
9
4, 9
6.
Performance
Change
6, 5
5
2, 4
Performance
6
4
8
Process
Improvement
6
1, 4, 6, 8
COURSE REQUIREMENTS AND ASSIGNMENTS:
Portfolio
The candidate will submit the designated Field-Experience performance activity to the portfolio
developed in the EdS portion of the degree. The portfolio contains artifacts that address skills,
knowledge, and dispositions in alignment with the six PSC standards described in the PSC
Educator Preparation Rule 505.3-.58. The portfolio will describe how the candidate has met
specific criteria set out in the PSC rule (qualitative and quantitative).
Instructional Methodology:
The candidates and university supervisor will use GeorgiaVIEW Vista for communication and
course management. Please check daily for postings, mail, and announcements. Instructional
methods may include, but are not limited to:

Problem-Based Learning

Proficiency Examination

Cooperative Learning

Document-Based Inquiry

Case Study Analysis
Required Activities:
Attendance and Participation: 5 percent Attendance and participation in all university and
school/system based activities is required for successful completion of module activities.
Bill Tracking Assignment: 25 percent (Individual)
Choose two education related bills that have been introduced for consideration by the Georgia
Legislature during the current legislative session. Follow those bills in committee and in the
media to analyze the problem they seek to address, the arguments offered in support/opposition,
their movement (or lack of movement) through the political system, and their status as of the
assignment deadline for the semester. The assignment consists: A Bill Tracking Journal; A Final
Bill Tracking Paper; Extra Credit: Conduct and Interview with the sponsor of the bill or a
member of the committee where it was introduced.
Or
Policy Analysis Paper: 25 percent (Individual)
Analyze the policy manuals from a local school organization, higher education institution, public
or non-profit organization and the process whereby policy is “made” within the organization.
Part of the research will involve perusing the organization’s bylaws and attending board
meetings to observe or learn the policy enactment process, if practicable. Also included in the
research should be an interview with a board member to get that person’s perspective on the
policy development/enactment process. The focal piece of the paper should include the
analysis/relationship of a particular policy area with the emphasis of that issue on the state and
national scene. The following components should include:
a. review and analysis of the policy manual and policy enactment process;
b. brief review of school board or institution bylaws;
c. synopsis of school board or institutional member interview; and
d. review of specific policy area (major emphasis)
e. discussion and conclusion
f. bibliography
Theoretical Framework Support:
Assessment:
Course Objectives:
GLISI Guidelines, ELCC Standards.
Holistic
All objectives
Film Analysis: Application of the politics of education to school leadership. 15 percent
(Individual)
Students are to write a 5-7 page essay about The Merrow Report: The Toughest Job in America,
addressing the following:
1. Political content analysis: Evaluate one or more course concepts (culture, values, interest
groups, conflict, power, etc.) exhibited in the video. How would you characterize the
political culture of the district?
2. Application to practice: Contrasts, Comparisons, and Resolutions: Drawing upon your
professional experience, identify similarities and differences between the politics that
Superintendent Hornbeck encounters and what you have encountered in your professional
experience. What would you do to resolve some of the conflicts Hornbeck encounters (or
creates himself)?
Theoretical Framework Support:
Assessment:
Course Objectives:
GLISI Guidelines.
Holistic
All objectives
What Needs to Change? – 25 percent (Group)
Choose a single policy component of a comprehensive state or federal law (like No Child Left
Behind, The HB1187, A Plus Education Reform Act, or IDEA) or an entire smaller-scale state or
federal law or regulation. Write a paper no more than 15 pages in which you: identify the nature
and scope of the reform and answer the following five questions:
1. Explain the underlying assumptions about the purpose of the reform
2. explain its theory and how to create good practice
3. summarize briefly the evidence on the reform
4. consider critics’ interpretations of each of these first three
5. explain the broader political, economic or social events or political factors that facilitated
its rise or hindered its success
In the paper’s final section, take a stand on whether the reform should be tried, revived,
scrapped, revised, or sustained. Refute at least one and preferably more than one counter
argument to your preferred case.
Oral Presentation: 5 percent
A 15 minute oral presentation of the project will be made during the final class meeting(s).
The presentation should include:
a. a clear identification of the issues
b. complete and systematic development of the major concepts in the time allotted
c. summary and conclusions
Theoretical Framework Support:
Assessment:
Course Objectives:
ELCC Standards
Rubric
All objective
Policy Reform Assessment (PRA): The Policy Reform Assessment is used to assess the policy
reform assignment in the course. Candidates are required to complete a study on a policy reform
which includes: (This is a field-based performance activity)
 identifying the nature and scope of the reform;
 identification of underlying assumptions about the purpose of the reform;
 a written analysis of the theory behind the reform; evidence on the reform;
 critical interpretations of the assumptions about the previous three;
 theory and how to create good practice; and
 application to broader political, economic or social events that facilitated or hindered
the reform’s success.

Theoretical Framework Support:
ELCC Standards, GLISI Guidelines
Goldring & Berends (2008);
Matthews (2006); Senge (2006); Shakespeare (2008).
Usdan (2002);
Assessment:
Exam
Course Objectives: All objectives
Final Exam – 15 percent
Theoretical Framework Support:
Assessment:
Course Objectives:
ELCC Standards, GLISI Guidelines
Exam
All objectives
Reflective Journal – 10 percent (Individual)
Using “reflect-in” and “reflect-on” strategies, candidates will submit 2 journal assignments on
the readings selected by the instructor, reflecting on their experiences and learning (Schon, 1991)
Theoretical Framework Support:
Assessment:
Course Objectives:
Schön, D. A. (1991). The reflective turn: Case studies in
and on educational practice,
Holistic
All objectives
Portfolio: Candidates will develop and maintain a portfolio for the entire EdS and selected
courses in the EdS program. Each term, the candidate will submit one artifact from the
University assignments and one from the School/System assignments to the university’s
electronic Chalk & Wire portfolio management system.
Theoretical Framework Support:
Assessment:
Course Objectives:
GLISI Guidelines.
Holistic
All objectives
X.
EVALUATION AND GRADING:
Evaluation:
Attendance
Reflective Journal
Policy Reform Assessment
Individual Assignment
Film Analysis
Group Project
Oral Presentation
Final Exam
5%
5%
20%
15%
15%
20%
5%
15%
Grading:
A= 90% -100%
B= 80% - 89%
C= 70% - 79%
F= 69% or lower
Note: All written work should reflect careful organization of material and the high standards of
investigation associated with college-level studies. All work submitted that requires
documentation should follow APA format. Manuscripts must be proof read to ensure accuracy
in spelling, punctuation, and grammar. Rubrics will be shared with candidates as a means of
establishing an understanding of expectation of graduate study in the BCOE and at KSU.
Every effort will be made by the instructor to be fair and equitable in the assignment of grades
through multiple processes noted above. In the final analysis, the assigned grade will be based
on the best professional judgment of instructor.
XI.
Date
Week 1
Week 2
Week 3
Week 4
Week 5
Week 6
Week 7
Week 8
TENTATIVE COURSE OUTLINE
Activity
Introductions, Overview and Expectations
PLANNING FOR CHANGE
1. The evolving context of education leadership
2. Strategic leadership in an organizational context
3. Strategic planning
POLITICS-Knowledge needed by strategic leaders
4. Governance
View Video: The Merrow Report
5. Politics, policy and policy issues
6. Finance – education finance magnitude
7. Law – Conventions, constitutions, cases, courtrooms
and classrooms
PERFORMANCE
9. Learning – expectations of students, teachers,
program alignment, cultural diversity and
instructional environments
10.
Assignment Due
Reflective
Journal #1
Film Analysis
Week 9
Week 10
Week 11
Week 12
Week 13
Week 14
Week 15
Week 16
XII.
9. Programs – Assessing the Quality, alignment with
standards, influences on post secondary education
10. Performance – student, leadership, school, measures,
national and international assessments
11. Problem solving – strategic approaches to decision
making
POWER
12. Power – definitions and distinctions
13. People – and school success, compensation reform,
selection, assessing and motivating
Presentations
FINAL
16. Preparing to be a strategic education leader
Reflective
Journal #2
Group Project
Final
Bill Tracking or
Policy Analysis
POLICIES
Diversity: A variety of materials and instructional strategies will be employed to meet the needs
of the different learning styles of diverse learners in class. Candidates will gain knowledge as
well as an understanding of differentiated strategies and curricula for providing effective
instruction and assessment within multicultural classrooms. One element of course work is
raising candidate awareness of critical multicultural issues. A second element is to cause
candidates to explore how multiple attributes of multicultural populations influence decisions in
employing specific methods and materials for every student. Among these attributes are age,
disability, ethnicity, family structure, gender, geographic region, giftedness, language, race,
religion, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic status. An emphasis on cognitive style
differences provides a background for the consideration of cultural context.
Kennesaw State University provides program accessibility and accommodations for persons
defined as disabled under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 or the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990. A number of services are available to support students with disabilities
within their academic program. In order to make arrangements for special services, students
must visit the Office of Disabled Student Support Services (ext. 6443) and develop an individual
assistance plan. In some cases, certification of disability is required. Please be aware there are
other support/mentor groups on the campus of Kennesaw State University that address each of
the multicultural variables outlined above. The development of an appreciation of diversity as a
core organizational value and its use as a resource will give direction to the activities of the
doctoral seminar and of the whole doctoral program. Consideration will be given to diversity in
developing the membership of the cohorts in the interest of ensuring that the collaborative
cohort experience contributes to the development of such personal and organizational core
values.
Professionalism- Academic Honesty: KSU expects that graduate students will pursue their
academic programs in an ethical, professional manner. Faculty of the EdS and EdD programs
abide by the policies and guidelines established by the university in their expectations for
candidates’ work. Candidates are responsible for knowing and adhering to the guidelines of
academic honesty as stated in the graduate catalog. Any candidate who is found to have
violated these guidelines will be subject to disciplinary action consistent with university policy.
For example, plagiarism or other violations of the University’s Academic Honesty policies
could result in a grade of “ F” in the course and a formal hearing before the Judiciary
Committee.
Papers should be a synthesis of information reported in your own words and with proper
documentation.
Professionalism- Participation/Attendance/Submission of Assignments/Use of Technology
During Class/Seminars: Part of your success in this course is related to providing peer reviews
and feedback to your colleagues regarding course assignments; participating and interacting in
course activities; collaborating and working equitably with colleagues; and treating colleagues
and the professor with respect both in and out of class. Furthermore, responding effectively and
appropriately to feedback from your peers and the professor/supervisor is another measure of
your professionalism. Please be prepared by bringing all materials and readings to meetings and
seminars. All readings assignments must be completed prior to meetings and seminars. We
depend on one another to ask pertinent and insightful questions.
Professionalism also includes appropriate audience behaviors during lectures and presentations.
When someone is speaking to the group or making a presentation, professionals do not engage in
conversations or other distracting behaviors that detract from the audiences’ attention to the
speaker.
Absences may be considered excused only in the case of personal or a professional emergency
and only if approved by the professor/supervisor in advance or as soon as possible after the
emergency event.
Using technology during class/seminar (laptops, cell phones, etc.) to check personal e-mail or
engage in activities not associated with course content is not acceptable and will likely result in a
reduction of course participation points. Engaging in personal conversations while
professor/supervisor or groups are presenting is not acceptable and will likely result in a
reduction of class participation points. A break will be provided for snacks and personal use of
technology.
In sum, a lack of professionalism will likely result in grade reduction.
XIII. REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY
Barker, D.W.M. & Brown, D.W. (2009). A Different Kind of Politics: Readings on the Role of
Higher Education in Democracy. Kettering Foundation.
Borman, K.M., Cookson, P.W., Jr., Sadovnik, A.R., & Spade, J.Z. (Eds.). (1996). Implementing
educational reform: Sociological perspectives on educational policy. Norwood, NJ:Ablex
Publishing Corporation.
DeBray-Pelot, E., & McGuinn, P. (2009). The new politics of education: Analyzing the federal
education policy landscape in the post-NCLB era. Education Policy, 23(1), 15-42.
Practice Together, 40-65.
Foster, M. (1995). African American teachers and culturally relevant pedagogy. In Banks, J.A.,
& McGee Banks, C.A. (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education
(570-581). New York: Macmillan.
Foster, M. (1994). The role of community and culture in school reform efforts: Examining
the views of African- American teachers. Educational Foundations, 8(2), 5-26.
Foster, M. (1993). Educating for competence in community and culture: Exploring the
views of exemplary African-American teachers. Urban Education, 27(4), 370-394.
Friedman, T. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century. New York:
Farrar, Straus & Giroux.
Georgia’s Leadership Institute for School Improvement (2008). Tools for planning and
improving leader performance.
http://www.glisi.org/site/default.htm
Gladieux, L.E., King, J.E., & Corrigan, M.E. (2005). The federal government and higher
education. Chapter 6 in P.G. Altbach, R.O. Berdahl, & P.J. Gumport (Eds.), American
Higher Education in the 21st Century (2nd Edition). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University
Press
Goldring, E., & Berends, M. (2008). Leading with data: Pathways to improve your school.
Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press.
Goodlad, J.I. (1984). A place called school: Prospects for the future. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hess, F.M. (2006). Tough love for schools. Washington, DC: AEI Press.
Kennedy, J.F. (2003). Profiles in courage. New York: Harper Collins.
Kingdon, J.W. (2005). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (3rd Edition). New York:
Longman.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American
Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465-491.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American
children. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.
Ladson-Billings, G., & Henry, A. (1990). Blurring the borders: Voices of African liberatory
pedagogy in the United States and Canada. Journal of Education, 172(2), 72-88.
LaMorte, M.W. (2004). School law: Cases and concepts (9th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Leithwood, K., Day, D., Sammons, P., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2006). Successful school
leadership. What it is and how it influences pupil learning. (Research Report 800).
University of Nottingham.
Matthews, D. (2006). Reclaiming public education by reclaiming our democracy. Kettering
Foundation Press.
McGregor, D. (2000). The human side of enterprise. New Jersey: Wiley.
Meier, D. (1995). The power of their ideas: Lessons for America from a small school in
Harlem. Boston: Beacon Press.
Metz, M.H. (1990). How social class differences shape teachers' work. In M. W. McLaughlin,
Talbert, J. E. & Bascia, N. (Eds.), The contexts of teaching in secondary schools:
Teachers' realities (pp. 40-107). New York: Teachers College Press.
Mintzberg, H., Lampel, J., and Ahlstrand, B. (2005). Strategy safari: A guided walking tour
through the wilds of strategic management. New York: Free Press.
Mullen, C.A. (2004). Climbing the Himalayas of school leadership: The socialization of early
career administrators. Latham, MD: Scarecrow Education.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for
educational reform. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.
National Policy Board for Educational Administration (2002). Standards for advanced programs
in educational leadership.
President Barack Obama’s Education Speech, March 10, 2009. Retrieved from
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/03/10/obamas-remarks-on-education-2/
Reeves, D.B. (2004). Assessing educational leaders: Evaluating performance for improved
individual and organizational results. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Sanders, M.G. (2006). Building school-community partnerships: Collaboration for student
success. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Schön, D.A. (1991). The reflective turn: Case studies in and on educational practice. New
York: Teachers Press, Columbia University.
Senge, P.H. (2006). Fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organizations (5th ed). New
York: Doubleday.
Shakespeare, C. (2008). Uncovering information’s role in the state higher education policy-making
process. Educational Policy, 22, 875-899.
Spillane, J. P. (2006). Distributed leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Spillane, J.P. (1998). A cognitive perspective on the role of the local educational agency in
implementing instructional policy: Accounting for local variability. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 34(1), 31-57.
Stampen, J.O. & Zulick, B.J. (2009). The 2008 Amendments to the Federal Higher Education Act:
Are we on the right track? WISCAPE Policy Brief, March 10, 2009. Retrieved from
http://www.wiscape.wisc.edu/publications/attachments/wb007.pdf.
Stevenson, H.W., & Stigler, J.W. (1992). The learning gap: Why our schools are failing and
what we can learn from Japanese and Chinese education. New York: Summit Books.
Stout, R.T., Tallerico, M., & Scribner, K.P. (1995). Values: the ‘what?’ of the politics of
education. In Scribner, J.D., & Layton, D.H. (Eds.), The Study of Educational Politics.
The 1994 Commemorative Yearbook of the Politics of Education Association, 5-20.
Washington, DC: Falmer Press.
Swanson, C.B. and Barlage, J. (December 18, 2006). Influence: A study of the factors shaping
educational policy. Editorial Projects in Education Research Center. Retrieved from
http://www.edweek.org/media/influence_study.pdf
Tandberg, D.A. (2008). The politics of state higher education funding. Higher Education in
Review, 5.
Tyack, D., & James, T. (1986). State government and American public education: Exploring the
"primeval forest." History of Education Quarterly, 26(1), 39-69.
Usdan, M. (2002). The new state politics of education. State Education Standard, 3(2), 14-18.
Wells, A.S., & Oakes, J. (1996). Potential pitfalls of systemic reform: Early lessons from
research on detracking. Sociology of Education, Special Issue on Sociology and
Educational Policy: Bringing Scholarship and Practice Together, 135-143.
Wirt, F.M. & Kirst, M.W. (2005). The political dynamics of American education (3rd Edition).
McCutchan Publishing Corporation.
Websites:
http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/site/c.kjJXJ5MPIwE/b.1427855/k.FAA3/Welcome_to_
the_Center_for_Public_Education.htm (The Center for Public Education)
http://www.doe.k12.ga.us/pea_board.aspx?PageReq=PEABoardRules (Georgia State Education
Rules and Policies)
http://www.gapsc.com/TeacherEducation/Rules/505-3-.58.pdfhttp:///www.doe.k12.ga.us
(Georgia Department of Education)
Many groups and agencies engage in policy analysis and put some version of policy
briefs online. Here are some sources where you might look:
Educational advocacy and professional organizations:
 National School Boards Association: http://www.nsba.org (look under “Advocacy” for a
policy brief about vouchers)
 American Federation of Teachers: http://www.aft.org (look under “AFT on the Issues”
for a number of policy statements)
 National Education Association: http://www.nea.org
 American Association of School Administrators: http://www.aasa.org
 Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development: http://www.ascd.org
 Phi Delta Kappa: http://www.pdkintl.org
 National PTA: http://www.pta.org
 National Council of Teachers of Mathematics: http://www.nctm.org
 University-based education research centers
 The Consortium for Policy Research in Education: http://www.gse.upenn.edu/cpre (this
has links to many related centers)
 Rutgers University: http://www.cepa.gse.rutgers.edu (also has links to other centers)
Educational think-tanks and private foundations:
 The Rand Corporation: http://www.rand.org
 The Hudson Institute: http://www.hudson.org
 The Manhattan Institute: http://www.manhattan-institute.org/
 American Institutes of Research: http://www.air.org
 The American Prospect: http://www.prospect.org
Go to the website of a major newspaper and see if you can find anything there about the
educational policies you’ve identified. Or read what they say about other policies. How does a
newspaper convey policy information differently than other sources? Try these:
 Education Week: http://www.edweek.org
 New York Times: www.nytimes.com
 Washington Post: www.washingtonpost.com
 Los Angeles Times: www.latimes.com