Members of NASJE lent their experience and expertise to a cadre of court leaders from across the nation at the July meeting of the National Association of Court Management in Atlanta.
NASJE Facilitators Tony Simones & Jeff Schrade
“NACM wanted to offer an educational session to equip our NACM state court leaders with the knowledge and skills about how adults learn and how to apply that knowledge whether teaching the NACM CORE or leading the State Association,” observed Will Simmons, President-Elect of NACM. “We reached out to NASJE to design this session with the full confidence that it would be a great partnership.”
A four-hour session on “Leaders Teaching Leaders” was facilitated by Jeff Schrade, Education Services Division Director at the Arizona Supreme Court and Tony Simones, Director of Civic Education for The Missouri Bar. Twenty-one court managers who lead regional and state court management associations participated in the session, as well as seven experienced mentors from NACM leadership. To encourage and facilitate discussion, three participants and a mentor were placed at seven tables.
While Schrade and Simones presented information to the entire group on subjects ranging from the courts as learning organizations to adult learning principles and creating learning objectives, an even greater amount of time was given to the participants for analysis and discussion of these ideas in small groups at their tables. “Jeff and I knew it was essential that they go beyond just listening to information and actually engage each other nto build valuable skills,” Tony Simones stated. “We wanted them to return to their courts prepared to implement these concepts.”
The day culminated with participants making presentations about material from the NACM Core that would create a foundation for interactions they will ultimately have with their own colleagues and staff. “Court leaders must teach – whether through formal classroom instruction, mentoring, or communicating with and persuading a wide variety of team members and other justice stakeholders,” commented Jeff Schrade.
Not only was the session designed to enhance the presentation and communication skills of regional court management association leaders, it was also intended to demonstrate to NACM leadership the viability of holding longer programs to explore topics in greater detail.
NACM President-Elect Will Simmons characterized the event as a success: “The NASJE facilitators, Tony Simones and Jeff Schrade, were outstanding and the “Leaders Teaching Leaders” session was designed perfectly to meet our needs. The participant feedback was phenomenal. We are very excited about our partnership with NASJE.”
In March, twenty judicial educators from around the country came together in the latest callinar presented by the Education and Curriculum Committee. Callinars were created by the committee as a way of bringing together members of NASJE to discuss relevant issues, when a formal webinar is not necessary. Thea Whalen of Texas served as the host of the event, assisted by Julie McDonald of Indiana, Janice Calvi of Connecticut, Dawn McCarty of Michigan, Ben Barham of Arkansas and Tony Simones of Missouri.
The article being discussed was “Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, Please Wake Up” from The Wall Street Journal, which addressed the problem of inattentive juries. After an initial acknowledgment that this was a problem throughout the country, the conversation shifted to why we should care. One of the central points that was developed by a number of participants focused on the fact that the power and credibility of the courts is shaped by the public perception of the courts. If that perception is one of important decisions being made by inattentive jurors, then the courts will be facing a major crisis. Some NASJE members made the argument that the right to trial by jury mentioned so prominently in the Constitution becomes simply an empty promise if jurors are not living up to their responsibilities.
NASJE members also discussed why jurors are inattentive: a human attention span that becomes shorter and shorter every day, the physiological challenge of staying seated and focused for hours at a time, the unfamiliar terminology used during the trial, the complexity of cases and evidence, ineffective attorneys and the bad attitude and resentment that comes with jury duty.
The greatest amount of time and energy was devoted to the actions that could be taken to address this problem. The ideas ranged from making sure that the individuals serving on a jury understand the importance of their service and the expectations of the judge to allowing jurors to take notes and ask questions.
One of the most significant points made during the discussion was that jury trials typically occur under conditions that contradict the most basic standards of effective judicial education. In our educational sessions, material is divided into smaller, more easily digested sections. Participants are provided with frequent shifts in focus and approach and material is presented to engage multiple learning styles. Trials frequently feature droning recitations that stretch over multiple hours, under physical circumstances and conditions that could hardly be considered ideal. It is little wonder that some jurors fall asleep.
The participants concluded that education for judges conducting trials should go beyond instruction on issuing rulings from the bench and extend to information on how to keep a jury engaged and focused. This more “jury conscious” approach would encompass everything from improving the environment in which juries serve to limiting the time they are in court between breaks.
The participants agreed that this is a situation in which judicial education has a role to play. Trial judges can be enlightened in judicial education sessions about the strategies and techniques that will produce the most focused and aware juries. These best practices would go far beyond merely coddling jurors. If the Sixth and Seventh Amendments are truly essential components of the Bill of Rights, then we need to take action to ensure that the people at the heart of making these amendments a reality are most effectively able to carry out their essential function. This is the obligation of the judge, but it is also the responsibility of the judicial educator.
We invite you to join us for the next callinar, “Humans Hate Being Spun,” on May 23 at 2:00 EDT.
James Barnhardt, husband of Lee Ann Barnhardt, takes advantage of a photo-op with Andre Agassi.
When I heard that former world No. 1 tennis player Andre Agassi was going to be the closing speaker at the Conference of Chief Justices mid-year meeting in January, I honestly geeked out just a little. I am a big fan and was looking forward to meeting him. My second thought was what could the chiefs possibly learn from a tennis star who was a 9th grade dropout? Surprisingly, I learned quite a few things from his fireside chat.
Love what you do. Agassi reached the world No. 1 ranking for the first time in 1995, but said he found no joy in the game and actually hated playing. He felt obligated to play the game that was thrust on him at a young age by his father, an Iranian immigrant. His attitude toward the game led to personal issues, including drug use, and he sank to world No. 141 in 1997, prompting many to believe that his career was over. After coming to terms with the game and learning to play for himself, Agassi returned to world No. 1 in 1999 and enjoyed the most successful run of his career over the next four years.
Have a passion. Agassi’s passion post-tennis is education. Andre created the Andre Agassi Foundation For Education in 1994 and has been hands-on every step of the way – from envisioning and creating Agassi Preparatory Academy in Las Vegas and continuing to engage with its students, to raising funds to support public charter schools and advocating for changes in public education. He said that making a difference in children’s lives is his life’s work. Agassi sacrificed his own education for success on the court, but saw education as the key to opportunity because giving kids education gives them options.
Andre Agassi spoke to the Conference of Chief Justices at their mid-year meeting in Nevada. The session was facilitated by Chief Justice of Nevada Michael L. Douglas.
Know your strengths. After successfully graduating 9 senior classes, Agassi Prep made the decision to turn over operations to a high achieving charter management organization. Agassi said he made this decision because he realized that he was not an educator and was not a school administrator. As much as he wanted to be part of the daily operations, he knew it was not a sustainable model. He said he had to figure out what he was good at, besides playing tennis, and use that strength to accomplish his goals. Agassi told the chiefs that his gift was being a facilitator, connecting people with needs with people with assets.
Leverage your resources. Since the inception of the Andre Agassi Foundation more than $180 million dollars has been raised to benefit the mission of the foundation. In 2007, along with several other athletes, Agassi founded the charity Athletes for Hope, which helps professional athletes get involved in charitable causes and aims to inspire all people to volunteer and support their communities. He most recently created the Turner-Agassi Charter School Facilities Fund. The Fund is an investment initiative for social change, focusing on the “nationwide effort to move charter schools from stopgap buildings into permanent campuses.” The Turner-Agassi Charter School Facilities Fund meets the facilities challenge by acting as a “bridge developer” for charter schools. Turner-Agassi serves school operators by taking the lead on site selection, acquisition, design and construction and providing 100 percent of development costs. School facilities developed by Turner-Agassi are then leased to school operators, who can then purchase the sites once they reach full occupancy. It has funded 79 campuses for high-performing charter schools. Agassi said the investors have recouped their initial funds and are now recycling that money to assist an estimated 85 more campuses.
While I will always think of Agassi as the brash young tennis player with the long hair and the rock-star attitude, I will not forget the lessons I learned from the man with a passion who is willing to use his celebrity for the greater good.
Patty McCord created the famed “Culture Doc” that became Netflix’s foundation. Here, she talks about how to make honesty everyone’s default.
As judicial educators, we recognize that humans hate being spun, yet our job sometimes requires us to be the “spinner.” We know in order to build trust, respect, and confidence we must be honest and give difficult feedback.
Please join us to discuss the theory and practice of radical honesty.
As judicial educators, we recognize trials are not as exciting as they appear in the media, but that doesn’t mean our courts should accept jurors sleeping through critical testimony and evidence. Join us to discuss how our courts can handle the inattentive juror and how to create an environment for engaged jurors.
Middle Schoolers and Judges: Observations from a First Year Judicial Education Manager
by Bryan Walker
Bryan Walker
One of the few interview questions I was prepared for was, “We can see you have a lot of experience working with students, but tell us about your experience working with adult learners.” In the back of my mind, I was thinking how much different could it be? My belief has always been that great teachers can teach anybody. The student’s age does not matter. My first disclaimer: I do not consider myself a great teacher. I have, however, found success as a teacher and coach. In my opinion, certificates and degrees have never determined the efficacy of a teacher. I have seen many teachers with Ph.Ds. who fail to connect with learners. As Jack Anderson Pidgeon, the headmaster of the private Kiski School in Saltsburg noted , “Teaching must flow from within. Teaching is an art.” I guess I relayed this message well to the interview committee. I have just completed my first year as judicial education manager with The National Judicial College in Reno, Nevada.
Of all the students I have had the privilege of working with, I believe middle schoolers are the most fascinating. I’ve spent 18 years in the world of independent schools as a teacher, coach, and administrator. Over the course of these years, I’ve learned many pedagogical lessons. I found it important to write these down in order to survive in the middle school environment.
At the beginning of my teaching career as a middle school math and science teacher, I learned the most important lessons did not revolve around content, but rather ensuring students were establishing a foundation for a strong work-ethic, organizational skills, and conducting themselves with some degree of decorum. I later learned as a dean of students, the importance and impact of advisory activities. Advisory activities would ensure every student is connected with an adult on-campus. Focusing a large amount of time providing a safe environment for students led to an increase in student achievement. Learners and their relationships with teachers are critical for success to occur. As the head of a school, I learned the importance of creating a strong foundation of close-knit relationships within the student body. When influential students study, every student studies. If influential students party, everyone parties. An environment conducive to learning can only be created with the “trend setters” on-board. Malcolm Gladwell’s “Law of the Few” (Gladwell, 2000) rings true in middle schools. I believe many of these lessons are just as valid in judicial education.
I have just completed my first year as a judicial education manager. I am now accustomed to primarily working with adults, the judges who serve as participants and faculty members. I am surprised at the pedagogical similarities relating to the first interview question I answered. Observations and insights I have gleaned from my first year of working at the National Judicial College coupled with my many years in K-12 education reveal the surprising similarities between middle schoolers and judges.
Middle schoolers are fragile, curious, and strong-willed. Judges are assertive, keen, and anxious to gain knowledge. Both parties carry an incredibly high degree of expectations and pressure to do their jobs with an incredible number of variables impacting their ability to perform to their potentials.
Middle schoolers, like all judges, want to do well. When a middle schooler feels loved at home, they are able to learn at school. When a school environment is safe, middle schoolers will voluntarily participate. Creating a safe learning environment for judges is equally important. Learners will gain the most out of a class when class participation occurs. Judges want to be active learners in a dynamic classroom. Creating a safe environment for both classrooms allows participation and the exchange of ideas, which is a sign of authentic learning.
Many middle schoolers carry a false sense of bravado. The more intense the bravado, the more care that is usually required. Many judges require the same amount of care. A black robe may portray an intimidating and self-assured front, but the same care and attention for details is required for judges. Judicial educators must ensure the needs of each judge is met for a course to be successful. This can range from changing the classroom seating arrangements to altering the delivery of content.
Mastering the art of teaching is required to connect with both middle schoolers and judges. There are so many changes happening with the students’ adolescent bodies, teachers must cater lessons to students’ excitement, lethargy, or mood swings. Judges also need each lesson to be presented concisely and coherently to ensure the small window of time they have for professional development is maximized.
Many girls in middle school are more physically capable. This trait allows girls to be more confident in some areas of school, leading to a more successful academic experience. Although there are fewer female judges in my courses, I have noticed female judges are generally very active participants. I have seen female judges maximize the opportunity to attend a course through lively participation.
Many middle school teachers I have worked with are relatively young and are inexperienced teachers. They are newbies to teaching. Many judges are also newbies to teaching. Judges, however, possess a wealth of experience from the bench. A breadth and depth of content knowledge is not always associated with being a great teacher. Effective teaching requires a connection with the students through common ground. This connection cannot be assumed. It must be identified and tapped into.
Middle schoolers and judges seek autonomy. Teachers should teach in such a way that learners discover the answers on their own. In both environments, teachers need to create environments where they empower students to gain knowledge on their own. Middle schoolers and judges do not want anything handed to them.
Middle schoolers believe no one understands them. These years can be a difficult time in their lives. They are seeking relationships with peers and crave the opportunity to be part of something bigger. Like middle schoolers, judges crave the opportunity to foster collegial relationships. When judges have the opportunity to be collegial, they share experiences and gain knowledge that impacts their daily decision making.
Middle schoolers must be active learners to fully understand a concept. Lessons should actively involve students and ensure relevancy for improved retention rates. Judges also require interactive and relevant courses. There are too many emails, too many cases, and too many other responsibilities vying for their attention. The lessons must be engaging and relevant to be worthwhile for the judges.
By Nancy Fahey Smith, Pima County Field Trainer (Tucson, AZ) and Director, NASJE Western Region
The restless learner—a person who can never be comfortable with her/his own expertise in the face of rapid knowledge advancements, research revisions, and obsolescence of facts.
—from Warren Berger, The More Beautiful Question (2014)
Judicial Branch Educators are restless learners. As such, they continually investigate new research on teaching and learning and on topics of interest to courts. They also need to be critical thinkers, constantly evaluating what they know and what they need to learn. Rethinking learning styles is just such a topic. There is much to know about learning styles, but well-tested and documented research goes against the widely accepted view that teachers should alter their teaching styles according to their learners’ learning styles in order to maximize learning. In addition, research casts doubt on the reliability of assessments designed to determine individual learning styles. In this article, the video that was the impetus for the session on this topic at NASJE’s 2016 conference will be summarized, a review of research on these topics will be discussed, and possible implications for NASJE members will be put forth.
First of all, how are learning styles defined? Essentially, this is part of the problem. The definition varies widely depending on which of many models one consults. Coffield et al., in the comprehensive “Learning Styles and Pedagogy in Post-16 Learning: A Systematic and Critical Review,” grapple with this issue and end up categorizing the many models into five different families (Coffield, 10).
(click for larger image)
Regardless of the definition of learning styles, the most popular recommendation in the models is that teachers should match their teaching style to the learning styles of their learners. How does a teacher know the learning style of a learner? By using a learning style assessment (LSA) or learning style inventory (LSI), or similar measuring tool.
With the complexity of these models in mind, a good way to begin an open discussion about the limited usefulness of learning styles theory in the development of classes, courses, or programs, is to view the 2015 TEdx Talk by Dr. Tesia Marshik called “Learning Styles and the Importance of Self-Reflection.” In it, Professor Marshik of the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse explains that we believe learning styles theory because the idea is so widespread that one might think, “How can so many people be wrong?” The idea seems so logical, it must be true! Many teacher training and faculty development programs include a discussion of learning styles theory and what teachers should do with respect to them. Because we are so convinced, we have something called confirmation bias. This means that since we want to believe a theory is true, we look for information that confirms our belief. But research into how people learn, Dr. Marshik points out, shows that people store information as meaning, and thus, they learn better not because a given teaching method matches their learning style, but because the teaching method helps learners create meaning.
In the video, Dr. Marshik demonstrates with several examples that it is not a person’s learning style or the way a teacher changes styles to match those of learners that increases learning. Instead, it is the context a learner brings to the table, and teaching methods that help learners achieve desired learning outcomes that makes a difference. For example, does it make sense to teach birdsongs by showing pictures of birds, because the learners have identified as visual learners? Of course not.
Better, says Dr. Marshik, to teach in ways that enhance the intended outcome of the teaching. Clearly, learners would need to hear birdsongs if they are to identify the songs. Similarly, they would need to see birds, or pictures of them, to help match the song to the kind of bird. In fact, Dr. Marshik points out that seeing pictures of birds, listening to their songs, and observing live birds (perhaps on a field trip?) or videos of birds singing would enhance the chances of learners actually identifying the birds and their songs because involving more senses has been proven to enhance learning, possibly because it helps create meaning. This phenomenon is not, however, due to different learning styles, rather it is true that all people, regardless of learning style, learn better if more senses are involved. In a similar way, if the outcome is for learners to be able to change a flat tire, actually having the experience of changing the tire, coupled with instruction, will give the exercise meaning. But this method doesn’t work just for or particularly for kinesthetic learners, rather having the experience enhances the ability to change a tire for all learners.
Dr. Marshik does not mean to say that people aren’t different or that they don’t learn differently, only that teaching to someone’s learning style does not enhance their learning. Learning styles are usually self-assessed, and teaching someone only to their chosen style is limiting. It inhibits the ways learners can learn rather than enhancing learning by a variety of means. And, it is impractical for teachers to do.
Finally, Dr. Marshik points out the importance of context to learning. In an experiment using chess boards and experienced chess players, researchers demonstrated that the chess players remembered the position of chess pieces on a board very well if the board represented a realistic game. By contrast, if the pieces were placed randomly on the board they lost their contextual meaning, and the players were unable to recreate with much accuracy where the pieces were placed. The random nature of their position on the boards negated the meaning (context) for players. As educators, it is essential to remember the importance of the context learners bring to the classroom. If context is lacking, it must be established before learners will be able to make meaning during the learning process.
In “Learning Styles and Pedagogy in Post-16 Learning: A Systematic and Critical Review,” authors Coffield et al., set out to evaluate a large number of models that claim to prove learning styles theory and offer models that classify the learning styles of students. Coffield and company studied 13 out of 71 such models in five different groups. (NOTE 1: A total of 3800 references were identified; 838 were reviewed and logged in the database; 631 texts selected in the references, and 351 texts referring directly to the 13 major theorists. See Coffield et al., Figure 1.) Their research states that there is a dearth of well-conducted experimental studies of the models. The learning styles assessments themselves have proven to be unreliable and often invalid. Their conclusion? There is no evidence that ‘matching’ teaching styles to learning styles improves academic performance. In fact, in the explanations of the learning theories, the implications for teaching are drawn from the theories themselves rather than from research findings. In other words, pedagogical advice in various learning style theories may be logical, but is unproven. The wide variety of models, the vested interests in purveyors of learning styles assessments, and the entire theoretical framework has not made a proven difference in the efficacy of education for many learners.
Coffield and his co-authors did not throw out those 71 theories as total bunk. Each model is carefully explained in terms of strengths and weaknesses. They agree that teaching learners ways to talk about how they learn and what motivates them, as espoused by Kolb, can be beneficial to their learning. Their conclusion, however, is the same: adapting teaching styles to learning styles does not enhance learning and given the complexity of the task, is impractical to undertake.
What about Kolb’s learning circle? Is it a workable model if one takes away Kolb’s four learning styles named diverging, converging, accommodating and assimilating and just leaves the cycle of learning he espouses in this circle? Coffield et al. say the value of the learning circle is a big maybe. The flexible approach to learning styles Kolb puts forth is a plus, and experiential learning theory is seen as a strength of the model. But the Learning Styles Inventory has proven to be neither reliable nor valid, although it has improved in more recent iterations, and the learning circle itself may not be applicable to all learning as is proposed by the model. Since the implications for teaching in Kolb have not been conclusively proven in research findings, it is difficult to know how well it works (68, 70). The research is decidedly mixed. Like much in learning styles theory, the concept is logical and appealing while in reality, further well-designed studies are needed to prove that the model can be relied upon.
In “Do Learners Really Know Best? Urban Legends in Education,” (2013) Paul Kirschner and Jeroen van Merriënboer of the Open University of the Netherlands Department of Educational Development and Research call learning styles theory an “urban legend” based on belief rather than science, and used by instructional designers, curriculum reformers, politicians, school administrators and advisory groups all vying for position to show how innovative and up to date they can be. Kirschner and van Merriënboer examine three problems with learning style theory in their article. First, they explain that most learning styles are based on types, which means they classify people into distinct groups rather than assigning people scores on different dimensions. Objective studies, such as one by Druckman and Porter in 1991, do not support this way of labeling people. In reality, many people do not fit one particular style, the way they are classified relies on inadequate information, and there are so many different styles that it is difficult to link particular learners to particular styles.
A second problem with the “urban legend” are the low reliabilities of the measuring instruments. In other words, when individuals complete a particular measurement at two different points in time, the results are very often inconsistent (Stahl, 1999). Research also calls into doubt the validity of the learning styles measure—the relationship between what people say about how they learn and how they actually learn is weak.
A final point according to Kirschner and van Merriënboer is the proliferation of reported learning styles, as seen above in the Coffield study. How can teachers ever truly accommodate so many different styles as proposed in so many theoretical constructs? The research to prove which of the theoretical constructs is actually best has not been done.
In 50 Great Myths of Popular Psychology (2010), Scott Lilienfeld and his co-authors make the same point, calling learning styles theory a myth, a scientific misconception. In the preface to the book, science educator David Hammer describes the four major properties of these kinds of misconceptions: 1. They are stable and often strongly held beliefs about the world; 2. They are contradicted by well-established evidence; 3. They influence how people understand the world; and 4. They must be corrected to achieve accurate knowledge. (Lilienfeld, et al. xiv). In their discussion, the authors arrive, after a review of the research, at the same conclusions as the Coffield group: The proliferation of learning styles models show no agreement about what learning styles are; learning styles inventories are not reliable, nor are they valid; there are not reliable studies showing that it helps students if teachers match their teaching styles to students’ learning styles. As the authors say, “models and measures of LS (learning styles) don’t come to grips with the possibility that the best approaches to teaching and learning may depend on what students are trying to learn.” (95). Clearly one would not choose to learn, nor to teach, ballroom dancing the same way as a foreign language or geometry theorems.
Popular education blogger Cathy Moore comes to the same conclusion about learning styles in her 2010 blog post “Learning Styles: Worth our Time?” and the Debunker Club is on a mission to convince teachers and others about the fallacy of their belief in learning styles in their “Learning Styles are NOT an Effective Guide for Learning Design.” They provide numerous references for further research supporting their view.
Essentially, while much good research exists that disproves learning styles theory, little good research proves that learning styles have value for teaching.
What does this mean for NASJE members, who learned about learning style theory in their new educators’ workshop and possibly in teacher education programs, and who hold to Kolb’s theories for support in their published instructional design and faculty development curricula? This is something each member will have to decide independently after doing their own research and examining what they teach, how they teach it, and why. In addition, NASJE as an organization should assess the value of teaching learning styles theory to new educators and new faculty, as well as decide how to approach faculty that have already been taught the theory and been asked to hold to it when designing their classes for judicial branch personnel.
What it does not mean, however, is that NASJE’s judicial branch educators have been teaching its members and its learners all wrong. To the contrary, many highly effective educators belong to this group. The NASJE curriculum design for instructional design, for example, teaches a logical progression for designing classes, considerations for developing learning objectives and outcomes, the importance of active learning and student involvement, a variety of teaching methodologies, evaluations, and much more valuable information at both a beginning and an advanced level. NASJE educators recognize the value of knowing their audience, and designing and teaching with their needs in mind. Rethinking learning styles is a way to advance the professionalism espoused by NASJE, and to embrace being “restless learners” who think critically and are not afraid rethink how they teach and learn.
NASJE members and judicial branch educators everywhere are encouraged to continue the discussion on the Judicial Educators Facebook page. In addition, posts about teaching methods that do work would be welcome. For those who do not yet belong to the group, search for “judicial educators” from your Facebook page and request to join the group. If you are not yet on Facebook, it is easy to join at facebook.com.
Kirschner, P., van Merriënboer, J., (2013). Do Learners Really Know Best? Urban Legends in Education. Education Psychologist, 48:3, 169-183, DOI: 10.1080/00461520.2013.804395. See: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2013.804395
Lilienfeld, S., Lynn, S., Ruscio, J., Beyerstone, B., (2010). 50 Great Myths of Popular Psychology. Wiley-Blackwell, West Sussex, UK.
Marshik, Tesia, (2015). “Learning Styles and the Importance of Self-Reflection.” TEdxUWLaCrosse, Wisconsin. Published via YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=855Now8h5Rs
NAJSE Curriculum Designs were developed with a grant from the State Justice Institute (SJI-10-T-091) and published between 2011 and 2015. See https://nasje.org/nasje-curriculum-designs/
The author would like to thank NASJE colleagues Kelly Tait, Margaret Allen and Caroline Kirkpatrick for their assistance and support in the writing of this article.
Currently the Pima County Field Trainer, Nancy Smith has over 8 years of experience working in court training and education, first at the Washington State AOC and now at Pima County Superior Court (Tucson, AZ). She came to the courts with 16 years experience in education, both as a community college instructor and a high school teacher in Tucson, and as a curriculum coordinator at the Evergreen State College in Olympia, WA. Nancy teaches many kinds of court related classes, including soft skill topics like team building and time management, and court related topics like due process. She also does training and process analysis in computer applications. She speaks periodically at conferences on topics related to judicial education and publishes articles at NASJE.org. Currently, she serves on the NASJE Board as the Western Region Director. She earned her bachelor’s degree in French and History at the College of William and Mary in Virginia, and her Master’s in French from the Free University of Brussels, Belgium. Nancy grew up in a Navy family, married into an Army family and served four years as an Army Intelligence officer. She has traveled widely around the United States and Europe as well as to Peru, Mexico and China. She likes the outdoors, and swims, hikes, bikes and does yoga to try and stay fit.
On August 11, 2016 NASJE’s Western Region hosted a meeting where we shared ways to approach teaching and facilitating discussions about the difficult topics of racism, prejudice and implicit bias in the judicial branch with judges and court staff. The documents provided by presenters can be found in the NASJE Member Area. Unfortunately, a link to the meeting recording is unavailable.
Michael Roosevelt shared how he and colleagues have approached the topic recently with staff at the California Center for Judicial Education and Research (CJER), while Jason Mayo of California shared the comprehensive, long-term plan for teaching the topics there. Jesse Walker of Washington shared the outline of a judicial conference to be held next spring which revolves around the topic and different ways these issues come up in a variety of sessions over three days. The film 3 ½ Seconds: 10 Bulletforms the nucleus for the conference. Educators from five Western states participated in the web-based meeting.
Date: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 Time: 12pm Pacific / 1pm Mountain / 2pm Central / 3pm Eastern (1 hour)
Paul DeLosh
As judicial educators, our challenge is to develop courses year after year that are relevant, engaging, and provide the most up-to-date information.
We use a variety of resources to accomplish this daunting task, and this year, our partners at the National Association for Court Management (NACM) have released thirteen curriculum designs that align with the NACM Core, the updated version of the NACM Core Competencies.
In this 1-hour webcast scheduled for August 31, 2016 at 3pm ET, NACM Board member Paul DeLosh will discuss the process he led to update the NACM Core and develop the accompanying curriculum designs. (Fun fact: NASJE Past President Robin Wosje worked with NACM to create the curriculum designs in her former role at the Justice Management Institute.)
Dr. Anthony Simones
Dr. Anthony Simones, Manager of Judicial Education in Missouri and NASJE Midwest Regional Director, will join Mr. DeLosh to discuss how he used the new Purposes and Responsibilities curriculum to develop a presentation for Missouri Municipal Court staff to begin addressing the problems that gave rise to Ferguson. This presentation is a preview of a full-length session Dr. Simones will present at our 2016 Fall Conference in Burlington.
As a result of attending this 1-hour session, participants will be able to:
Locate information regarding the NACM Core and the curriculum designs
Compare the NACM Core to other curricula for judicial
officers and court staff
Use the curriculum designs as part of the course development process
We can all use more resources to make the education we develop current, relevant and engaging for those we serve. The NACM Core and accompanying materials will be an excellent addition to your toolbox!
By Christine Christopherson, National Center for State Courts
What do you get when you cross a book club and a conference call? A “callinar,” of course! It was our pleasure as the Curriculum and Education Committee to host the very first ever “callinar” for judicial branch educators on April 28, 2016. For our first article we discussed “Do You Suffer from Decision Fatigue?” by John Tierney, which focused on a very relevant topic that allowed us all to learn from one another.
This callinar idea began with an article that Leigh Ferguson, NASJE member from Tennessee, first read shortly after taking her bar exam several years ago, and she said it has changed the way she approaches decision making. It sparked a conversation about how, as a committee, we might bring different types of learning opportunities to other judicial educators outside of the formal conference without asking already busy professionals to commit to too much additional work. The callinar seemed like a fun way to create a learning space that educators can really use to learn from one another and participate in a conversation. A wide variety of educators from across the country attended the inaugural 90-minute session, and to the committee’s delight, they actively participated and interacted during the session.
Tony Simones prompted the discussion with the question, “Do you buy into it (the idea of decision fatigue)? The first time I read it I thought, here we go again another way to make excuses for bad behavior. What are your thoughts?” Many shared their concerns about skepticism, but once those were aired, the conversation turned to examples of this very phenomenon taking place throughout the courts. Some shared ways they themselves have suffered from decision fatigue, while others offered ways it may apply to people with whom they work. Some educators also mentioned the possible need for food at conferences or even on the bench in the afternoon in order to avoid decision fatigue in those settings. Another comment reflected the idea that harder decisions could also impact the level of fatigue. Hence, those making higher stakes decisions could suffer from a higher level of decision making fatigue.
We wrapped-up the conversation with a question about the types of changes we can make in order to lessen the impacts of decision fatigue. Most educators agreed that they make the best decisions when they are feeling grounded, centered, and whole. Another participant shared some research about the biological factors that promote or detract from high performance. Another raised the issue of decision making and poverty — is poverty a trap? Does living in poverty impact the decisions people make? If so, what is the level of awareness of judicial officers in this regard, and how will that impact those we serve? Another great implication to consider.
In the end, it was the consensus of the group that in order to make real impactful changes, there would need to be buy-in from the bench. The group discussed when might be the best time to schedule sessions that might challenge the status quo. Another discussed providing better types of food at meetings and conferences to encourage better decision making and active participation. Another suggested starting with other working groups such as line staff or court reporters. Participants provided some great suggestions for working towards opening others up to this idea and making changes to have a positive impact with regards to decision making in the courts.
Christine Christopherson has been an educator for about 25 years. She has worked in Adult Education since 2003, with experience teaching Community Education, GED courses, Parenting, Domestic Violence, and Criminal Thinking. Christine became the Judicial Branch Educator for the State of South Dakota in 2012, where she was the sole staff member in charge of coordinating, planning, implementing, and tracking all education programs for court staff and judges. In 2014 she and her family moved to Williamsburg, VA where she accepted a position as the Curriculum Developer for ICM, primarily charged with revising and updating courses along with conducting and developing faculty development programs. Currently, Christine serves as the Curriculum Development Manager for ICM. She is currently a member of the Fellows class of 2017.
The day culminated with participants making presentations about material from the NACM Core that would create a foundation for interactions they will ultimately have with their own colleagues and staff. “Court leaders must teach – whether through formal classroom instruction, mentoring, or communicating with and persuading a wide variety of team members and other justice stakeholders,” commented Jeff Schrade.
Currently the Pima County Field Trainer, Nancy Smith has over 8 years of experience working in court training and education, first at the Washington State AOC and now at Pima County Superior Court (Tucson, AZ). She came to the courts with 16 years experience in education, both as a community college instructor and a high school teacher in Tucson, and as a curriculum coordinator at the Evergreen State College in Olympia, WA. Nancy teaches many kinds of court related classes, including soft skill topics like team building and time management, and court related topics like due process. She also does training and process analysis in computer applications. She speaks periodically at conferences on topics related to judicial education and publishes articles at NASJE.org. Currently, she serves on the NASJE Board as the Western Region Director. She earned her bachelor’s degree in French and History at the College of William and Mary in Virginia, and her Master’s in French from the Free University of Brussels, Belgium. Nancy grew up in a Navy family, married into an Army family and served four years as an Army Intelligence officer. She has traveled widely around the United States and Europe as well as to Peru, Mexico and China. She likes the outdoors, and swims, hikes, bikes and does yoga to try and stay fit.
On August 11, 2016 NASJE’s Western Region hosted a meeting where we shared ways to approach teaching and facilitating discussions about the difficult topics of racism, prejudice and implicit bias in the judicial branch with judges and court staff. The documents provided by presenters can be found in the 
Christine Christopherson has been an educator for about 25 years. She has worked in Adult Education since 2003, with experience teaching Community Education, GED courses, Parenting, Domestic Violence, and Criminal Thinking. Christine became the Judicial Branch Educator for the State of South Dakota in 2012, where she was the sole staff member in charge of coordinating, planning, implementing, and tracking all education programs for court staff and judges. In 2014 she and her family moved to Williamsburg, VA where she accepted a position as the Curriculum Developer for ICM, primarily charged with revising and updating courses along with conducting and developing faculty development programs. Currently, Christine serves as the Curriculum Development Manager for ICM. She is currently a member of the Fellows class of 2017.