Blazing New Trails - Connexions

More documents

Recommendations

Info

312 CRITICAL ISSUES IN EDUCATION LEADERSHIP PREPARATION The first three questions were derived by assessing in a pragmatic way what the consumer wanted operationally in an educational leadership program. The fourth question addressed the quality of the program, which was desired by the student and faculty within the program. The first question dealt with how much of the program should be delivered online or asynchronous. A variety of options were discussed including maintaining a face-to-face program, using a hybrid approach in each class, to offering some of the classes online. In the end, it was determined that anything less than a totally online program would adversely impact the geographical area the program could recruit from and thus negatively impact potential enrollment. The second question addressed the issue of how long should it take to complete the program. It was determined that students wanted a time efficient program and the best way to achieve that objective was to bundle classes together in blocks of study. Thus a 30 semester credit hour Master of Education degree could be completed in semesters or 15–18 months as a part time student. The principal certification could be completed in 22 semester credit hour or three semesters for a student who already possessed a master’s degree (see Appendix A). The bundling of courses also impacted the third question, which was how much should it cost? By bundling courses, it reduced the number of times that student registered and paid fees that are typically charged by universities such as: athletics, fine and performing arts, computer, etc. Typically, each semester a student pays the fees irrespective of the number of hours that he or she is taking. Thus, the more hours taken results in less semesters registered and less fees paid. In addition, we approached the central administration and proposed a $120 per semester credit hour scholarship be awarded to each student to reduce his or her tuition. We also presented a proposal which indicated a 20% increase in semester credit hour generation would offset the amount provided through the scholarship. Thus, we were able to offer a program that was highly cost competitive. Obviously, the fourth question was the key to the program development. The one non- negotiable was to design a high quality program the faculty could support. The program was based on the principal competencies identified by the Texas Education Agency (TEA), which are based on the 2008 Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) standards. The faculty determined the courses should be provided in four integrated thematic blocks (see Figure 1). Block I is an Introduction to Educational Leadership. Block II is Best Practices in Curriculum and Instruction. Block III is Special Populations and Special Functions in Schools and Block IV is The Principalship. Block II-IV has applied experiences to complement the coursework (see Appendix A). FINDINGS Data were collected to compare the last face-to-face group of students (2008–2009) to the first online group of students (2009–2010). Specifically, semester credit hours generated, semester credit hour capacity/efficiency, revenue generated and performance on the state certification examination were compared. Table 1 shows a comparison of semester credit hours generated for the face-to-face and on line program. With minimal marketing of the program, limited to e-mails to school districts, information on the department’s website and word of mouth from students the Department experienced a 250% increase in semester credit hour generation.
Shifting From a Face-to-Face to an Online Educational Leadership Program: A Case Study 313 Table 1. Semester Credit Hour Generated Comparison. Semester Face-to-Face 2008–2009 Semester Credit Hour Fall 324 865 Spring 288 800 Online 2009–2010 Semester Credit Hour Summer 339 1092 Total 951 2757 Another measure of comparison is the number of semester credit hours generated per class. This demonstrates the efficiency and cost effectiveness of each class. The Department actually had one less faculty member in 2009-2010 (online) then in the 2008-2009 (face-toface) school year because of a grant position. The department strategically decided not to replace the faculty line, but to use teaching assistants to help grade papers and monitor discussion boards, etc. The teaching assistants were paid out of course fees, which are assessed to all courses by the University and are designed to offset expenses associated with courses. Table 2 shows the average semester credit hours generated per class. Table 2. Semester Credit Hour Generated Average per Class. Semester Face-to-Face 2008–2009 Semester Credit Hour Per Class Average (SCH/Total Number of Classes) Fall 29 108 Spring 29 67 Summer 42 99 Total Average 33 91 Online 2009–2010 Semester Credit Hour Per Class Average (SCH/Total Number of Classes) The State of Texas uses a two tier funding system for institutions of higher education. The University receives the tuition and fees paid by the students, and the University is then reimbursed by the state for semester credit hours that are generated. Typically, graduate reimbursement rates are higher than undergraduate rates. Table 3 presents the comparison of revenue generated from the face-to-face and online programs excluding fees. After the $120 per semester credit hour was factored into the revenue generated, the online program increased tuition and fees by $107, 633 or 34%. In addition, the University experienced an increase in the fees to support the various operations of the institution.
Page 1 and 2:
20 NCPEA 11 BLAZING NEW TRAILS: Pre
Page 3 and 4:
NCPEA EXECUTIVE BOARD 2010-2011 Pre
Page 5 and 6:
NCPEA HONOR ROLL OF PRESIDENTS, 194
Page 7 and 8:
TABLE OF CONTENTS Contributing Auth
Page 9:
Betty J. Alford, Stephen F. Austin
Page 12 and 13:
xii Yearbook Reviewers Kenneth Rasm
Page 15:
INVITED CHAPTERS PART 1
Page 18 and 19:
4 PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE (3) The fed
Page 21 and 22:
Shadows and Images II 7 LIVING LEGE
Page 23 and 24:
Shadows and Images II 9 see little
Page 25 and 26:
Shadows and Images II 11 settings,
Page 27:
Shadows and Images II 13 into the m
Page 30 and 31:
16 INVITED CHAPTERS Purpose of the
Page 32 and 33:
18 INVITED CHAPTERS do not recogniz
Page 34 and 35:
20 INVITED CHAPTERS Research Proced
Page 36 and 37:
22 INVITED CHAPTERS Political maneu
Page 38 and 39:
24 INVITED CHAPTERS CONCLUSION This
Page 40 and 41:
26 INVITED CHAPTERS Johnson, R. B.,
Page 43 and 44:
Complexities in the Workload of Pri
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
47 CRITICAL ISSUES IN SHARED LEADER
Page 63 and 64:
Professional Learning Communities:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Special Education Director Burnout
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Superintendent Decision-making and
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
CRITICAL ISSUES IN CRITICAL ISSUES
Page 125 and 126:
Administrative Functions The Admini
Page 127 and 128:
The Administration of Special Educa
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133:
Page 137 and 138:
CRITICAL ISSUES IN PROMOTING ACADEM
Page 139 and 140:
The Effective Practices and Beliefs
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Creating Shared Meaning in High Per
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173:
Page 176 and 177:
162 CRITICAL ISSUES IN PROMOTING AC
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Principals and Teachers Stated Beli
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Distinguishing Practices for Admini
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225:
CRITICAL ISSUES IN SCHOOL IMPROVEME
Page 228 and 229:
214 CRITICAL ISSUES IN SCHOOL IMPRO
Page 230 and 231:
Page 232 and 233:
Page 234 and 235:
Page 236 and 237:
Page 238 and 239:
Page 240 and 241:
Page 242 and 243:
Page 244 and 245:
Page 246 and 247:
Page 248 and 249:
Page 250 and 251:
Page 252 and 253:
Page 254 and 255:
Page 256 and 257:
Page 258 and 259:
Page 260 and 261:
Page 262 and 263:
Page 264 and 265:
Page 266 and 267:
Page 268 and 269:
Page 270 and 271:
Page 272 and 273:
Page 274 and 275:
Page 276 and 277: 262 CRITICAL ISSUES IN SCHOOL IMPRO
Page 289 and 290: The Social Justice Implications of
Page 301 and 302: Name Exton Gateway Experiences with
Page 303 and 304: Experiences with PTELL in Six Illin
Page 309: Part 5 CRITICAL ISSUES IN EDUCATION
Page 312 and 313: 298 CRITICAL ISSUES IN EDUCATION LE
Page 333 and 334: CRITICAL ISSUES IN EDUCATION LEADER
Page 335 and 336: Service to the Profession: The Forg
Page 339 and 340: Qualitative Data Service to the Pro
Page 343: Service to the Profession: The Forg
show all

Blazing New Trails - Connexions

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?