UofP MA Ed Brochure for Oregon: Skimpy Faculty Qualifications?

Yesterday in my mailbox at school was a brochure for the "University of Phoenix, Oregon Campus." It describes an offered masters degree inclusive of the initial administrator's license. It lists 12 faculty members. I used to teach junior high in Newbergh with one of these. As I glanced at this brochure a question formed:

Forgive me for using my own experiences for raising this issue. But in my MA, MDiv, ThM (theology) programs I only had two profs, at Western, without an earned PhD/ThD. Those had the four (grad) year ThM. At the University of San Diego where I acquired the major in English and the standard teaching credential I never had a prof without a doctorate in any course in either of those disciplines. And at Oregon State ,as well, in the specialist teaching credential program, and other stuff, I never had a prof without a doctorate! These experiences occasion my surprise at the faculty listing here in this UofP Oregon Brochure.

For of the 12 profs named for this wholly graduate program only 4 have doctorates. My experiences are all dated , so have times so changed? Is it now to be expected that 75% of the faculty teaching a graduate program will not have doctorates??

 

No, but UOP is dissimilar to most other graduate programs. One of my alma maters, National University, also has people with only master's degrees teaching graduate students in Education.

The difference is that often these people have significant teaching experience, certainly more teaching experience than most Ph.D.s in education. This is part of the emphasis in places like UOP and National is that your classes are taught by working professionals, in this case, classroom teachers. Few classroom teachers will have a doctorate.



Tom Nixon

 

Yes the brochure does call its profs a "Practitioner Faculty." It also says that its members average 16 years of experience. As one looks at the intended competencies acquired through program completion one sees these are practical ones for the most part. Competencies are developed in areas as curriculum development, school law, ethnic relations, and special education. I guess it can be argued that people who have worked in an area for some time should be considered able to teach that area at the grad level being qualified by their experience. But as said, this is a different perspective. It is, certainly different, from my time at USD and OSU where all profs of my classes had docs.

On the other hand, one might wonder if a prof who has studied a particular area such as curriculum development, school law, ethnic relations, or special education up into the doctoral level might not be able to lead students through those subjects more thoroughly and exactingly than someone who merely has performed on the job for a while. Possibly those 16 years average experience were in a variety of positions( third grade teacher 11 years, counselor 3 years , assistant principal 2 years ) and not therefore conducive to developing a real expertise which focuses on and deepens a grasp of one area. Perhaps little real increment in skills and related knowledge actually occured in that time. I know this is hypothesizing any application to any faculty members of any university , but I also know it often happens in general in the ranks of school teachers.

But, on the otherhand doctoral work can be very demanding requiring much evidence of growth. My experience is that it requires a rigor far surpassing what is needed to get by teaching junior high, making the supervisor happy even if one teaches for 16 years. And I've done it since '69. Also, my hunch is that generally a doctorate in education has as an entry requirement inclusive of some teaching experience. The point is well made that most school teachers do not have doctorates. But I don't think it would be correct to say that most profs of education have not been school teachers . To have a PhD or experience would not seem to be an either or dilemma in qualifying one to be a prof of education. The former , it would seem, would superbly sharpen the latter and the latter brings the point home .

Well, no matter. I do not hire for UofP anyway.

 

And I don't think I said that. At least I hope I didn't. However, most professors of education are only required to have 3-5 years of actual teaching experience. Granted, most that I had had more than that.

However, to teach a course in curriculum development, my preference would be someone who has taught for 20 years, earned an M.A., and become a district's curriculum coordinator. I would take this person over someone who only has seven years of teaching experience and a doctorate in C&I *almost* every time.


Tom Nixon

 

No I didn't mean that you said that. Actually the Ed D entry req at OSU in the 70s was only two years of teaching. The Dean of the dept wanted me to be his assistant as I had at that time ( a whopping ) 7 years. I do see your point, but wonder why , then, it is not, at least in my experience, the case that universities, or seminaries, do not advertise for those either with docs or with lots of expertise gotten through hands on experience. I have taught learning disabled students since '69, but I'm not sure I would get hired at the Univ of Oregon by the Special Ed Dept. And as said, unlike me, lots of teachers bounce around filling various positions. Many too follow predigested lesson plans not experiencing "curriculum development" at all. They teach what they are given to teach!


Applying the logic that time on the job best qualifies one to teach the area of that experience at the grad level, seminaries lag far behind UofP in that insight. The standard pastoral degree, MDiv, includes much practics, yet it is rarely the case that a pastor Jones with his BA teaches at an ATS RA seminary because he has pastored for 30 years. I am not saying that because these seminaries or USD or OSU require docs that therefore the UofP hiring guidelenes are wrong;I just observe the difference and ponder why.

Is it really because of a genuine conviction such as yours held by the UofP re who would best teach curriculum development or is it because of the UofP pay scale or other teaching conditions (as only offering part time work which school teachers would bite at) which attract fewer docs and mostly practioners..I don't know.

It's not earth shaking, just interesting.