The Doctorate in Physical Education Teacher ...

Download PDF
45 downloads 1451 Views 748KB Size Report
Comment
contexts for doctoral programs in Physical Education Teacher Education within ... USNWR annual graduate school rankings rely 25% on the reputational ...
Joumal of Teaching in Physical Education, 2011, 30, 178-188 ©2011 Human Kinetics, Inc.

The Doctorate in Physical Education Teacher Education in the 21^^ Century: Contexts and Chaiienges Phillip Ward\ Sue Sutherlancl\ Marianne L. Woods^, B. Ann Boyce^, Grace Goc Karp'^, Michael Judd^, Melissa Parker^, G. Linda Rikard^, Christina Sinclair^ ^The Ohio State University, ^Western Illinois University, ^University of Virginia, ''University of Idaho, ^Wingate University, ^University of Northern Colorado, ^George Mason University In this paper, we situate the findings from the studies in this thematic issue within the current policy environment that influences the status, rankings, and funding contexts for doctoral programs in Physical Education Teacher Education within and across institutions. We identify common challenges that these doctoral programs are confronted with including the recruitment of doctoral students, the lack of diversity of faculty and students, the purpose of the doctoral degree, and core content knowledge for the degree. Throughout the discussion we provide questions and recommendations for the field to consider. Keywords: doctoral education, doctorate, policy analysis

The papers in this thematic issue present different pieces of the puzzle of the doctorate in Physical Education Teacher Education (D-PETE) in the USA. This paper is divided into two sections. First, we present a summary of the current policy contexts tbat D-PETE programs find themselves operating within higher education, we discuss some big picture challenges to our profession and present some recommendations tbat we bave considered as we examined tbe collective data in this thematic issue. Second, we focus on significant PETE-specific problems found in the data in this thematic issue. We identify wbat we see as the challenges and pose some recommendations for the field to consider.

Ward and Sutherland are with Physical Education Teacher Education, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH. Woods was with the Kinesiology Dept. at Western Illinois University, Macomb, IL. Boyce is with the University of Virginia, Kinesiology Program, Charlottesville, VA. Goc Karp is with the University of Idaho, HPERD, Moscow, ID. Judd is with the School of Sport Sciences, Wingate University, Wingate, NC. Parker and Sinclair are with the School of Sport & Exercise Science, University of Northern Colorado, Greeley, CO. Rikard is with George Mason University, School of RHT, Manassas, VA.

178

The Doctorate in PETE

179

The Contexts of the Doctorate in 2010 The doctoral enterprise is very much about power. In its simplest form it is about the power of status, rankings, and funding. In the first decade of the 21 st century higher education has come under considerable financial and political pressure. This pressure has led increasingly to the use of various indicators (e.g., faculty productivity, extramural funding, and selectivity of admission) for the measurement of status, rankings, and funding both within and across institutions. Status. While there is significant interinstitutional differentiation in terms of status in the Carnegie classifications there is also considerable within institutional differentiation. As Davies and Guppy (1997) observe: Higher education is organized primarily by discipline, and these disciplines are unequal with respect to power, prestige, and economic payoffs... Each institution, independent of its place in the higher education pecking order, is internally layered with a hierarchy of fields of study. The professional faculties, engineering and business, are typically much more prestigious and powerful than the humanities or social sciences (p. 1418-1419). The hierarchy in status and power is seen most prominently in the distinction between STEM (science, technology, engineering, math) programs that have higher status in the university than non-STEM programs typically found in the humanities and social sciences. STEM programs command higher status because they represent significant funding priorities by the federal government and they are the top priorities for foundations and charities supporting education (Grantmakers for Education, 2009). PETE is typically found in the non-STEM programs and, as such, does not command the high status of STEM programs. Within institutions of higher education D-PETE programs also vie for status and thus resources against programs within their own college, school, department, or unit. Among the strategies PETE programs employ to gain status is the development and maintenance of a doctoral program. A doctoral program strengthens the legitimacy and thus, the status of the academic enterprise. Rankings. The two tnost influential rankings at the institutional level are the U.S. News & World Report's (USNWR) annual graduate school ranking of the nation's colleges and universities and the National Research Council's (NRC) rankings. The USNWR and NRC evaluations have created increased competition among institutions for the prestige associated with higher rankings. For example, USNWR annual graduate school rankings rely 25% on the reputational rankings from peer institutions. Since institutions compete against each other it is easy to see how the system might be manipulated. For instance, the Boston Globe (Shea, 2009) reported that a spokeswoman for Clemson University stated in a press interview, "the Clemson brass 'rates all programs other than Clemson below average,' adding; 'And I'm confident my president is not the only one who does that.'" Similarly, The Wall Street Journal (Stecklow, 1995) reported that many college administrators were so eager to be highly ranked that they falsified the statistics they supplied to USNWR. The Journal found a 25% discrepancy rate with the stated versus the real data supplied by institutions to USNWR.

180

Ward et al.

These examples emphasize how significant the rankings are to institutions of higher education. What they do not show is the trickle down impact from institutional to program level. To use two of our own programs as examples, the College of Education and Human Ecology at Ohio State will rarely offer a graduate assistantship to a student who has scored less than a minimum of 500 on both the verbal and quantitative portions of the Graduate Record Examination (GRE). At the University of Virginia the requirements are 500 on verbal and 600 on quantitative, with a 4.5 on writing. The Deans of these colleges have taken this position to boost GRE scores, which are an influential and somewhat easily changeable variable in the USNWR calculations for rankings. Such policies create significant challenges for admission to doctoral programs. Students for whom English is a second language are particularly challenged in meeting a requirement of 500 for the verbal portion of the GRE. One of the immediate impacts of such a policy is a reduction of the number of students who can be admitted to doctoral programs and this can in turn influence program viability. In contrast the NRC rankings rely on a series of measures including faculty quality, the student experience, and diversity. The American Academy of Kinesiology and Physical Education (AAKPE) has worked to have the field of Kinesiology included in the NRC rankings of doctoral programs in the life sciences area (Thomas et al., 2007). Recently, AAKPE completed their own Evaluation of Doctoral Programs using many of the criteria used in the NRC (Thomas & Reeve, 2006). The results of that study can be found online at: http://www.aakpe.org/. Earlier in this issue Ward, Parker, Sutherland, and Sinclair (2011) proposed that D-PETE programs participate in the AAKPE doctoral evaluation study and/or create a PETE doctoral evaluation study focused on key indicators of importance to the field. However, based on their review Ward et al. (2011) observed, "Frankly, most PETE doctoral programs would not fare well in the AAKPE review using the indicators selected for that study" (p. 154). If D-PETE programs want to, or are expected to, compete alongside other programs within and across universities using the AAKPE or NRC rankings, we suspect that a majority of D-PETE programs would need to make significant improvements in the indicators. Moving down this path will raise several questions for our field including: (a) Do we need as many D-PETE programs as currently exist in the United States? (b) Are D-PETE programs providing a rigorous research preparation that would enable graduates to engage more successfully in the area of publications and grants? And, (c) Do D-PETE programs represent centers of faculty productivity as expected from such programs? We do not know the answers to these questions, but we believe they should be answered. We are, however, not in favor of adopting the AAKPE criteria primarily because those criteria are too narrow in defining the roles and impact of D-PETE programs. Nonetheless several D-PETE programs were included in the AAKPE study. If D-PETE programs are not currendy on the path proposed by the AAKPE review, they are likely to be there soon as the NRC and AAKPE rankings are unlikely to disappear in the immediate future. It is not likely that NRC criteria will change, but it nfiight be possible to expand the AAKPE criteria. Funding. Colleges and universities receive financial support from many sources: state and local governments, student tuition, federal grants and loans, and private gifts and endowments. However, with declining revenue in most states there is

The Doctorate in PETE

181

less state support for higher education (Bennett, 2009). This has required that higher education institutions increase student enrollment, tuition costs, fundraising campaigns, and extramural funding. For faculty, this has led to increased student enrollment in programs and the offering of larger sections of classes to improve the effectiveness of limited resources. In many institutions it has also led to increased pressure on faculty to obtain not just any extramural funding, but funding with a high percentage of indirect costs, from sources such as the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation. Reduced funding, much of it the result of recent downward economic trends, has also effected faculty hiring. To fill vacated positions, institutions are increasingly hiring part-time faculty and full-time faculty in nontenure tracks; practices that generate huge savings for colleges and universities in terms of salaries and benefits. The Center for College Affordability and Productivity found that the number of nontenure track faculty more than doubled between 1987 and 2007 (Bennett, 2009). A majority (72%) of these instructor positions were part time. Cooper (2009) reported that nontenure track faculty members now make up 65% of total higher education faculty, up from 43% in 1975 with 46% of this group being part time. If these hiring trends continue, with nearly a third of the higher education faculty above the age of 55 and major increases in retirements looming for 2006-2016 (American Association of State Colleges and Universities, 2006), the full-time, tenure track position may disappear. Boyce and Rikard (2011a) reported earlier in this thematic issue that 10% of PETE positions were filled by nontenure track faculty (typically clinical and lecturer positions). Though the argument in favor of using nontenured track positions has been primarily fiscal, the circumstances that some PETE programs find themselves in is one where there are too few Ph.D.'s to fill positions (Boyce & Rikard, 2011a). Under such circumstances hiring nonPh.D.'s may be the only choice some programs have. Using nontenure track and part time instructors has raised concerns about the impact on student learning and success in terms of the delivery and stability of programs; the status of nontenure track and part time faculty within the university; the erosion of tenure and academic freedom; the impact on shared governance both in terms of equity for nontenure track faculty and the increased role for tenure-track faculty, and the increase in online courses (American Association of State Colleges and Universities, 2006; Bennett, 2009; Cooper, 2009). The economic situation has led some colleges to go further than shifting from tenure-track to nontenure track faculty in their hiring practices, "When it comes to saving money, universities are laying off staff members, freezing future faculty hiring, imposing furloughs, and trimming operating expenses. Some are merging academic departments, but few are eliminating them outright." (Wilson, 2009, p. A9). Unfortunately, the economic circumstances faced by higher education institutions are not yet over The full effect of the economic fallout has yet to hit home on many campuses, a perception reflected in numerous interviews with anxious higher-education leaders and in the sobering findings of a new Chronicle survey. In the survey sent to chief finance officers at four-year colleges in September, 62% of the respondents said they did not think the worst of the financial pressures on their institutions had passed. Nearly two-thirds of them worry that 2010, 2011, or 2012 or later, will be even tougher (Blumenstyk, 2009, p. Al).

182

Wardetal.

Chaiienges and Recommendations for Our Profession The papers in this thematic issue have identified a number of challenges and recommendations for our profession. These focused on recruiting qualified individuals, including those with diverse ethnic backgrounds, to D-PETE and careers in PETE; clarifying the purpose of D-PETE programs; and identifying the core content for D-PETE programs. Recruitment of Doctoral Students. In their paper, Boyce and Rikard (201 la) discussed the shortfall of supply relative to demand for PETE faculty positions. They suggested that the shortage of qualified PETE faculty to positions will continue unless changes are made to the recruitment of doctoral students. In two specific papers of this thematic issue authors offered recommendations to address recruitment issues. Boyce and Rikard (2011a) advocated for (a) the promotion of the doctorate as a career path for those in undergraduate physical education programs, (b) more active recruitment of individuals from PETE masters programs in nondoctoral granting institutions, and (c) the recruitment of teachers at professional conferences through the use of information sessions. Woods, Goc Karp, and Judd (2011 ) reported that PETE faculty would like to see the following; (a) improved promotion of D-PETE programs through grants, publications, and scbolarly activities; (b) an increase in funding (assistantships and fellowships) for students; (c) the development of a national network to provide institutions with the ability to match interests, career aspirations, and timelines of potential candidates; and (d) stronger recruitment of quality physical educators within two years of graduating from an undergraduate or masters program, before financial security is too hard to surrender. While these recommendations hold much merit, decreasing the number of years of teaching experience for doctoral students coming into a D-PETE program could have implications at all levels of PETE. Faculty clearly valued prior K-12 teaching experience for students applying to doctoral programs (Parker, Sutherland, Sinclair, & Ward, 2011 ; Woods & Goc Karp, 1997; Woods et al., 2003). However, this expectation was often waived due to issues related to student recruitment (Ward et al., 2011). Despite providing teaching experience in the doctoral program newly graduated PETE faculty often do not have sustained, hands-on K-12 teaching experience (Woods & Goc Karp, 1997; Woods et al., 2003). This may affect both faculty credibility and their ability to prepare future physical education teachers. Another alternative to the issues of doctoral student recruitment is the possibility of using a new model for doctoral education. Programs could work with local school districts to build collaborations that will allow doctoral students to gain sustained, hands on K-12 teaching experience in schools while completing their doctoral degree. The obvious drawback to this would be an increase in time to matriculation that could inhibit students applying to these programs. However, this approach could offset the financial concerns of doctoral students but it would also increase the number of part-time students in D-PETE programs. Woods et al. (2011) also reported that many of the surveyed teachers felt they were already qualified to work in higher education teaching preservice teachers physical education. Lack of Diversity of Faculty and Students. Boyce and Rikard (2011 a) described a candidate pool for jobs in the 2008-09 year as 78% Caucasian and noted that

The Doctorate in PETE

183

faculty at doctoral granting institutions were predominately Caucasian (89%). Tbe undergraduate populations and teaching force that we draw from are mostly Caucasian (Melville & Hammermeister, 2006). Thus, little will change until tbere are more minority teachers recruited into tbe teaching force or if we are able to actively recruit qualified minority candidates (i.e., candidates who meet admission requirements). While there are significant barriers for minorities including campus racial climate and a lack of minority peers and faculty mentors (King & Chepyator-Tbomson, 1996); witb respect to attracting doctoral students from minority groups we agree witb Hodge and Wiggins, (2010) wbo argue tbat for qualified doctoral candidates: Academic units should establish and support both need- and merit-based assistantships, fellowships, or scholarships designed to help African American and other graduate students of color enter graduate programs and to complete their degree requirements ... [In particular] financial awards based on need, rather than merit will increase access for more African Americans, wbo more likely tban their White peers come from low-income families living in high-poverty communities (p. 13). We argue further that qualified minority masters and doctoral candidates in particular, and qualified individuals in general who are currently in the teaching workforce might be supported in their admission efforts through the use of summer institutes designed to help them study for and. pass the GRE and be admitted into graduate programs. Our assumption here is that if they are intellectually competent, experienced teachers whose primary barriers to doctoral education are scores on the GRE and/or financial support, then this is where it makes sense to invest our efforts and resources. Finally, while the research in this thematic issue did not include other minority groups we believe programs should create a welcoming and supportive environment for the recruiting of individuals with disabilities and those who are Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender. The Purpose of the Doctoral Degree. A recurring theme in the papers in this thematic issue is that graduates from D-PETE programs enter higher education work in positions with differing duties and responsibilities. Tbose who reside in doctoral granting institutions are required to perform and disseminate researcb, teach at the graduate and/or undergraduate level, and seek extramural funding. Institutions that have masters and undergraduate PETE programs often require faculty to teach in the PETE program (graduate and undergraduate), supervise teacher candidates, and engage in and disseminate research or scholarship (Boyce & Rikard, 2011b; Parker et al., 2011; Ward et al., 2011; Woods et al., 2011). Faculty at institutions witb undergraduate PETE programs will spend tbe majority of their time teaching, supervising, or advising undergraduate students and may also have some scholarly expectations placed upon them. Although this is a coarse classification of programs, it serves to illustrate that tbe skill-set required of graduates of doctoral programs may need to be different relative to the type of institution where they are employed. Viewed this way what differs most among these categories is the level of research expectations. As such, this forms the basis for any argument in favor of creating a professional doctorate versus a research doctorate to serve different constituencies. A professional doctorate, tbe Ed.D.,

184

Wardetal.

would emphasize teacher education as its primary outcome. The degree would also focus on research, but in the area of practice and professional knowledge. The reality of many Ed.D.'s, however, is quite different from the oversight and rigor expected in the Ph.D. In 2006, The Higher Learning Commission—North Central Association of Colleges and Schools commissioned a report to examine the existing professional doctorate. Among their conclusions they noted; While the various professions have defined the nature of each program, there seems to be no obvious consistency among the various degrees as to length of study; rigor, substance, or content of the program; or the ultimate utility of the degree to the person who earns it. Last but not least, in many universities, the decision has been made—at least to date—to separate the new professional doctorates from the coordinating oversight of graduate school. Even more important, many of the new programs are being provided by colleges and universities that offer few if any other doctoral programs and, in some cases because of the unique configuration of the total program offerings of the institution these institutions have no established graduate structures (p. 1). Typically these policies are institutional rather than program-level influences and there may be little individual programs can do other than assuring their own quality control. There are at least three further issues relative to considering a professional doctorate. First, does one need an Ed.D. or Ph.D. to do quality physical education teacher education? In some institutions a significant portion of teacher preparation is being performed by graduate students, or K-12 teachers with a master's degree. Note that we said quality physical education teacher education. We recognize that there is diversity in the preparation that instructors without a doctorate may have. However, as Ward et al. (2011) noted there is already a considerable variability in the preparation of doctoral students. Second, one cannot know if the career path of a person with a doctorate will remain the same (e.g., teaching only). Thus, having an Ed.D. preparation may limit the choices a graduate may have for their career path. Third, with respect to the Ph.D., too many doctoral graduates seldom publish during their careers, or they publish little research that contributes to their field. This finding has been reported in a number of professional fields (e.g., Felbinger, Hölzer & White, 1999; Kendall, 2002). There are probably several reasons why this is the case, including, how well they were trained, their interest in doing research, the extent to which they are held accountable for research productivity in promotion and tenure decisions, and their teaching and advising workloads. Finally, with respect to the marketability of doctoral students Boyce and Rikard (201 lb) reported that many D-PETE graduates needed a secondary area of expertise (e.g., adapted physical education, motor development) to improve their job marketability. This was less evident in the 2008-09 data set (with 50% of the positions requiring outside areas of study) compared with the 2005-06 data set (with 85% of the positions requiring outside areas of study). This has been a recurring finding in past research (Woods, Goc Karp, 1997; Woods, et al., 2003). Boyce and Rikard (201 lb) noted that the smaller the college the greater the need for multiple areas of expertise.

The Doctorate in PETE

185

Before leaving this topic, we want to acknowledge that with respect to whether the doctorate, be it Ph.D. or Ed.D, should be pursued full time or part time; that within the authorship of this paper there is disagreement over whether the pursuit of a doctorate, be it a Ph.D. or an Ed.D., should be a part-time or full-time enterprise. Ward et al. (2011) argued that full-time approach to the doctorate is a necessity, noting "attending a doctoral program part-time is akin to attempting to understand all that goes on in a school by visiting a few classrooms a week. (p. 148)" Boyce and Rikard (2011 a), however, suggested that part-time doctorates might be more attractive to potential students and thus increase the number of graduates of programs who can enter the professoriate, thereby addressing the shortfall in supply each year. A Core Content Knowledge for the D-PETE Degree. Common to the vast majority of higher education positions for D-PETE graduates, regardless of other expectations (e.g., research, graduate teaching), is the teaching of undergraduate physical education majors. It is here where there may be a foundation upon which the majority of our field can agree (cf: Parker et al., 2011 ; Woods et al., 2011). As such the preparation that D-PETE graduates receive in this area, we argue, should be more similar than different across institutions. This knowledge base certainly includes a knowledge of teaching effectiveness in physical education. We strongly believe that the knowledge base also needs to include an empirically-based understanding of teacher education. Yet, the vast majority of doctoral programs reported by Ward et al. (2011) do not include knowledge of teacher education in their programs of study. In our view this is a significant oversight. In 1985, Locke and Dodds described a relationship between research on teaching (ROT) and research on teacher education noting that, "When it is demonstrated that a particular teaching method produces learning in pupils (ROT), that evidence may serve to validate the content of a teacher education program" (p. 114). What is needed is not just the study of teacher effectiveness, but the knowledge and skills to effectively design and deliver teacher education programs. Public Policy. Ward et al. (2011) found little evidence of doctoral students being taught about public policy related to health in their doctoral programs. Public policies have had a significant impact on the health of young and older Americans (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2008). The most significant influences have been State government policies that contributed to the marginalization of physical education and physical activity in schools by reducing contact time and substitution requirements for physical education. We see a strong need for current and future faculty to step into the public policy arena to interpret and react to polices that impact physical education, physical activity, and teacher education both directly and indirectly; to help inform pre- and in-service teachers about public policy issues and advocacy; and to help create public policy. Among the skills doctoral students need for this area is an understanding of basic civics from county to state to federal government. For example, understanding how a bill becomes a law, how regulations differ from statutes, or the role of the judiciary in interpreting and enforcing either a statute or a regulation. In addition, case study examination of how some major public reform occurred such as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act-IDEA (cf: http://www2.ed.gov/ policy/speced/leg/idea/history.html); examining policy efforts that resulted in the smoking bans in states; and closer to home the work of Judy Rink and others in

186

Wardetal.

South Carolina in changing their state's legislation to add physical education to the school report card (cf: Rink & Mitchell, 2003). Further, Siedentop's (2009) National Plan for Physical Activity Education frames much of the public policy debate in physical activity and as such it should be required reading for doctoral students, and for that matter undergraduate and master's students. No one is expecting PETE graduates to become lawyers or public policy specialists. It is not unreasonable, however, to expect an understanding of basic civics and some understanding of how puhlic policy reform works. Gaining this knowledge need not be coursework driven. There are at least three ways this might be done other than by coursework. First, faculty as mentors play an important role in modeling engagement with state associations in their efforts to support or block legislation related to physical education, physical activity, and teacher education and in their efforts to conduct research on puhlic policy issues related to these areas. Including our students in these efforts is important. Second, Johns Hopkins University Puhlic Policy Institute runs a "pre-term" introduction to puhlic policy for its entering graduate students. They invite speakers to talk on topics such as the history of a hill, law, and relevant policies. At the same time they cover basic prerequisites for students in graduate school such as writing skills and math skills. Replicating this model using guest speakers from the university (e.g.. Colleges of Law and Puhlic Policy) and state associations would not, we suspect, be particularly onerous for many institutions. Third, Monica Lounsbery from University of Nevada Las Vegas has on a number of occasions presented and conducted workshops at state and national conferences explaining policy (e.g., Lounshery, 2006). State and national conventions could run annual or biannual full day workshops not just focused on the advocacy that is currently done, but on public policy issues for faculty and graduate students. It was not our intent in this thematic issue to prescribe an entire doctoral course of study or to provide solutions to the issues we have discovered in the previous papers. We believe strongly in a diversity of approaches to the problems described in this thematic issue. But we are troubled hy issues related to the recruitment of students and the diversity of the future professoriate in PETE, with the rigor and quality in D-PETE programs and the preparedness of our doctoral graduates in D-PETE. We urge action on the part of graduate programs in reviewing their missions and practices in light of findings from this thematic issue. Finally, we wish to ensure that we have good "stewards ofour profession"; a phrase we have borrowed from the Camegie Initiative on the Doctorate: This person is a scholar first and foremost, in the fullest sense of the termsomeone who will creatively generate new knowledge, critically conserve valuable and useful ideas, and responsibly transform those ideas through writing teaching and application. We call such a person a "Steward of the discipline." (Golde, 2006, p. 5)

References American Association of State Colleges and Universities. (2006). Policy Matters, 3(4), Retrieved from http://www.aascu.org/media/pm/pdf/v3n4.pdf. Bennett, D.L. (2009). Trends in the Higher Education Labor Force: Identifying Changes in Worker Composition and Productivity. Retrieved from http://www.centerforcollegeaffordability.org/uploads/Trends_LaborForce.pdf

The Doctorate in PETE

187

Blumenstyk, G. (2009). In time of uncertainty, colleges hold fast to status quo. The Chronicle of Higher Education, ¿V/(10), p. A1, A14-16. (Oct. 30, 2009) Boyce, B.A., & Rikard, G.L. (201 la). A comparison of supply and demand for PETE professionals in higher education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 30, 116-128. Boyce, B.A., & Rikard, G.L. (201 lb). Characteristics of PETE doctoral level institutions: Descriptions of programs, faculty and doctoral students. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 30, 103-115. Cooper, K.J. (2009). A disturbing trend. Diverse Issues in Higher Education, 26(9), 20. Curtis, J. W. (2005). Trends in faculty status, 1975-2003. American Association of University Professors. Retrieved from http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/prubsres/research/trends 19752003.htmF=loectrights/legal/topics. Davies, S., & Guppy, N. ( 1997). Fields of study, college selectivity, and student inequalities in higher education. Social Forces, 75(4), 1417-1438. Eelbinger, CL., Hölzer, M., & White, J.D. (1999). The doctorate in public administration: Some unresolved questions and recommendations. Public Administration Review, 59, 459^64. Golde, CM. (2006). Preparing stewards of the discipline. In CM. Golde & G.E. Walker (Eds.), Envisioning the future of doctoral education (pp. 3-22). Stanford, CA: JosseyBass. Grantmakers for Education. (2009). Benchmarking 2009: Trends in education Philanthropy. Retrieved from http://www.edfunders.org/downloads/GEEReports/BENCHMARK08. pdf. Hodge, S.R., & Wiggins, D.K. (2010). The African American experience in physical education and kinesiology: Plight, pitfalls, and possibilities. Quest, 62, 35-60. Kendall, G. (2002). The crisis in doctoral education: A sociological diagnosis. Higher Education Research & Development, 21, 131-139. King, S.E., & Chepyator-Thomson, J.R. (1996). Factors affecting the enrollment and persistence of African-American doctoral students. Physical Educator, 53(4), 170-181. Locke, L., & Dodds, P. (1985). Research on preservice teacher education for physical education. In CL. Vendien & J.E. Nixon (Eds.), Physical education teacher education: Guidelines for sport pedagogy (pp. 113-134). New York: Macmillan. Lounsbery, M. (2006). Using credible, persistent, and resolute advocacy to influence policy change. Workshop provided at the annual meeting of the American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, Salt Lake City, UT. Melville, D.S., & Hammermeister, J. (2006). Pre-service physical educators: Their demographics, Wellness practices, and teaching interests. Physical Educator, 63(2), 69-11. Parker, M., Sutherland, S., Sinclair, C , & Ward, P., (2011). Not surprised, but concerned: The professoriate's reaction to PETE doctoral education in the US. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 30, 157-177. Rink, J., & Mitchell, M. (Eds.). (2003, Monograph). State Level Assessment in Physical Education: The South Carolina Experience. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 22, October 2003. Shea, C (2009). Did Clemson game the U.S. News rankings? Boston Globe. Retrieved from http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/hrainiac/2009/06/did_clemson_gam.html Siedentop, D. (2009). National plan for physical activity education sector. Joumal of Physical Activity and Health, 6(Suppl. 2), SI 68-S180. Stecklow, S. (1995). Cheat sheets: Colleges inflate SATs and graduation rates in popular guidebooks. The Wall Street Joumal. April 5, p. AI. The Higher Learning Commission North Central Association of Colleges and Schools. (2006). A report to the hoard of trustees from the task force on the professional doctorate. Retrieved from http://www.ncahlc.org/download/TaskEorceProfDocFinal0606.pdf Thomas, J., & Reeve, G. (2006). A review and evaluation of doctoral programs the 20002004 by the American Academy of Kinesiology and Physical Education. Quest,58(\), 176-196.

188

Ward et al.

Thomas, J.R., Clark, J.E., Feltz, D.L., Kretchmar, R.S., Morrow Jr., J.R., Reeve, T.G., & Wade, M.G. (2007). The academy promotes, unifies, and evaluates doctoral education in Kinesiology. Quest, 59(1), 174-194. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2008). 2008 Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Ward, R, Parker, M., Sutherland, S., & Sinclair, C. (2011). A critical examination of the curriculum of physical education teacher education doctoral programs. Joumal of Teaching in Physical Education, 30, 145-156. Wilson, R. (2009). In hard times, colleges search for ways to trim the faculty: What happens when entire departments get the ax. The Chronicle of Higher Education, LV(40), pp. A1,A9-11. (June 26, 2009). Woods, M. L., Goc Karp, G., & Judd, M. (2011). Search chair and physical education teacher perceptions about filling PETE positions. Joumal of Teaching in Physical Education, 30, 129-144. Woods, M.L., & Goc Karp, G. ( 1997). Are you ready for today's higher education positions? Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 68, 46-50. Woods, M.L., Goc Karp, G., & Feltz, D.L. (2003). Positions in kinesiology and physical education at the college or university level. Quest, 55, 30-50.

Copyright of Journal of Teaching in Physical Education is the property of Human Kinetics Publishers, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.