Global Educators Cohort Program - Teacher Education

Click here for Site Map
Jump to Main Content


Members: Lead: Peter V. Paul: Members: Shirin Antia & Jean Andrews


Charge: To develop criteria for voting membership in university consortium involving doctorate programs in Deaf Education.

At the December 2007 meeting, initial criteria were suggested:




May 13, 2008 (Final Draft)

Criteria for Voting Membership

To be a voting member in a university consortium, the Prospective University must meet most or all of the following:

1. Prepare Teacher Educators in the Area of 'Deaf Education'
Comment: Typically the university will have (or will have access to) a teacher preparation program with a specialization in education of deaf/hard of hearing students. The nature and extent of preparation of the teacher educator is within the purview of the participating university. It is hoped that such preparation takes into consideration activities such as supervision of preservice students, teaching of courses (with advisor), advising and evaluating projects (with advisor), and obtaining an understanding of accreditation (e.g., NCATE, etc.). In addition, if available, doctoral students in Deaf Education can obtain a minor or take courses in a Teacher Education (General Education) doctorate program and participate (meetings, etc.) with that cohort of students.

2. Prepare Researchers
Comment: The nature and extent of this preparation is within the purview of the participating university. It might be beneficial for students to take courses in BOTH the quantitative and qualitative domains. Students should engage in research with their advisors and participate in inter-university projects, if possible. Student should also have the opportunity to participate as ‘guest reviewers’ of journals (i.e., advisors must be on the editorial boards) and to present at research conferences—for example, AERA. In addition to presentations and performing reviews, students should be able to submit manuscripts for publications in peer-reviewed journals. It is strongly recommended that students have published, refereed articles and refereed conference presentations by the time the program is completed. Students should obtain experience in submitting proposals for grants (with advisors).

3. Grant the EdD or PhD with a specialization in Deaf Education.
Comment: It is not necessary that "Deaf Education" of "Education of DHH" be on the degree itself. It is recognized that programs fall under many Departments and that the degree major might be special education, education, speech and hearing sciences depending on the department or division in which the degree is offered. However, the Doctorate Program must prepare Teacher Educators/Researchers with a specialization in education of deaf/hard of hearing students. This does not cover AUD (Doctor of Audiology) degree, or degrees that focus on SLP (Speech-Language Pathology), Deaf Studies, Administration, Counseling, or School Psychology. These areas can be cognates or minors; NOT the primary focus.]

4. Have strong support among faculty, Department Chair, Dean, Provost (if necessary)
Comment: Students in Deaf Education should be able to interact with other faculty and doctoral students in either Special or General Education as appropriate. Such interactions will require the support of the faculty. Doctoral preparation should be seen as a ‘group’ effort; not the effort of the tenured faculty in Deaf Education only. The program will also need a written commitment from the appropriate administrator to join the consortium.

5. Have at least ONE full-time faculty (100% FTE) member in the program able to advise doctoral students in this area (i.e., Deaf Education).
Comment: NCATE (or any other accreditation agency) typically requires that the ‘main’ faculty in a professional area (e.g., Deaf Education, VI Education, etc.) have teaching experiences in a PreK to 12 school setting. There are other arrangements that can be made if the tenure-track faculty does not have teaching experience, especially with deaf or hard of hearing students. Nevertheless, program credibility is enhanced if the tenure-track faculty has such teaching experiences. In some cases, the minimum amount of teaching experience is three years in a PreK to 12 setting.

6. Be willing to participate in external DHH doctoral committees.
Comment: This depends on the Graduate School rules of the University. Typically, only tenure-track faculty are permitted to serve on doctoral committees. External faculty can be INVITED to participate (via telephone conferences, etc.), but such faculty may not have ‘voting’ rights (e.g., for general examinations, doctoral oral defence). It is important to encourage such participation of ‘other’ deaf education faculty’ at other universities (with or without voting rights) to take advantage of such ‘expertise’, for example, in areas such as mathematics or science, which may not be available at the host university.

7. Be willing to provide at least one enrichment activity for students in the project.
Comment: Topics for enrichment vary and are under discussion (see Enrichment Committee). There are many advantages to this criterion—a major one: Students at various universities become exposed to the ideas of the range of faculty in deaf education in the participating universities. Doctoral students also have the opportunity to exchange ideas among themselves. It might be beneficial to permit non-voting universities (i.e., universities without doctorate programs) to participate in enrichment projects. Members from non-voting universities can ‘pair’ with a member from the voting universities. Doctoral students, themselves, can ‘lead’ as a member as well—although, it might be best if this is operated mostly by university faculty. Another type of activity can be set up for doctoral students only, if feasible.

Since the universities with doctorate programs are, essentially, responsible for the education of its respective students and also for participation in the Consortium, only these university/members should have voting rights for activities/procedures/policies related to the Consortium (similar to what existed for the NCLVI on Visual Impairment). Certainly, it is feasible and desirable for voting members of the Consortium to receive input or advice from a separate group (e.g., Advisory Group, universities with no PhD program, but possess Deaf Education programs, etc.)--however, such members should not have 'voting' rights for the affairs of the Consortium.