The second “article club” is scheduled for Thursday, July 14 from 11:00 – 12:30 (PT), 12:00 – 1:30 (MT), 1:00-2:30 (CT) and 2:00 – 3:00 (ET).
The April 28, 2016, “article club” was a success and now it is time for the second one. These “article club” style phone conferences were created to bring NASJE members together in conversations about topics of interest to judicial educators.
The second article chosen by the committee is “#IAmFruitvale#: An Approach to Teaching Court Staff about Racism, Prejudice and Implicit Bias” by Matthew Estes and Nancy Smith. The article relates how these educators were inspired by the movie Fruitvale Station, how they set out to teach the class and the response they received. Their experience raises the larger issue of how judicial educators should address controversial subjects.
Food for thought from the article . . . “Opinions vary widely as to whether racism exists, to what degree, and in what parts of the system. It seems to be an apt topic for judicial educators to tackle as they seek to provide meaningful educational events for judicial branch employees at all levels.” “Can the topic be explored in a classroom setting to judicial branch employees without provoking anger and defensiveness?”
This session will be held in a conference call format, and will be moderated by members of the committee. Space is limited. To register and receive the conference call access code information, please contact Anthony.Simones@courts.mo.gov.
We’ve all been there. You go to an educational program and leave filled with the energy of the experience and with every intention of applying what you have learned to your professional life. As time passes, though, the magic fades, the routine of everyday life takes over, and all too soon you are left with just a vague memory of a pleasant experience.
Missouri is hoping to break out of that pattern with one of its signature judicial education programs: the Missouri Court Management Institute (MCMI).
Created in 2012 in conjunction with the National Center for State Court’s Institute for Court Management, MCMI brings together judges, clerks, administrators and juvenile officers six times a year to explore the purposes and responsibilities of courts, measurement of court performance, case flow management, and managing technology projects, judicial finances and human resources. Over one hundred individuals from the courts have participated in MCMI.
A narrow view of the purpose of MCMI is that it educates participants about these important areas and their impact upon the courts. However, larger lessons have emerged as the program has developed. An awareness of the importance of individuals from different parts of the judiciary coming together, exchanging ideas and learning from each other. The need for all parts of the courts to be considered in identifying strategies for the most effective operation of the judiciary. The necessity of considering a wide range of factors and concerns in order for the courts to be at their best.
An even broader view of the impact of MCMI, however, was exhibited and demonstrated in the planning and presentation of Missouri’s 2016 Judicial Leadership Summit (JLS). A program conceived and sponsored by the Supreme Court of Missouri and the Office of State Courts Administrator, the JLS was designed to bring together leaders from the different parts of the judiciary to address issues of significance to the courts.
On April 21-22, over one hundred and fifty people attended the JLS that included members of the Supreme Court of Missouri, as well as presiding judges, court administrators, circuit clerks and chief juvenile officers from around the state. Among the topics discussed were the implications of Ferguson, creating an effective workplace environment in the courthouse, the ethical use of technology, the creation and operation of treatment courts, interacting with self-represented litigants, future technology currently being developed for the courts and the effects of vicarious trauma on court personnel.
From the perspective of judicial education, one of the most meaningful aspects of the JLS was its many links to MCMI. Of the dozen members on the JLS planning committee, most had been MCMI trained. The experience of going through MCMI enhanced the ability of the planners to collaborate, setting goals and working together to accomplish those objectives. Six of the JLS faculty members had ties to MCMI. Over a third of the 156 JLS participants had participated in MCMI. These numbers demonstrate a significant connection between the two programs.
However, it is not just a matter of numbers. The people who planned, taught and attended the JLS strengthened the message that is the driving force of MCMI: the success of the courts depends on so much more than just moving cases. Both the JLS and MCMI focused on topics that equip courts to thrive in the complex environments in which they operate and empower individuals in the courts to most effectively serve the cause of justice. As noted by Missouri Court of Appeals Judge Gary Lynch, a member of the faculty for both MCMI and JLS, “Our highest calling is to do justice in every individual case that comes before us and the synergy created by the interplay between MCMI and the JLS moves us much closer to fulfilling that call than either individually could.”
Whether the focus is on numbers or philosophy, it is undeniable that the impact of MCMI was significantly leveraged to improve the Missouri judiciary through the JLS. This is more than a single success story. It is evidence that programs can and should build upon and reinforce each other. More importantly, it illustrates that judicial education programs can help to create and perpetuate a culture that encourages the courts, and those that serve the courts, to work collaboratively and to search for innovative solutions to the challenges they confront.
*** Anthony Simones has been the Manager of Judicial Education in Missouri for almost five years. Holding a JD and PhD from the University of Tennessee, Dr. Simones has been a professor of government, law and criminology at Missouri State University, Columbia College, and Dalton State College. He is the recipient of the Missouri Governor’s Award for Teaching Excellence and is a three-time nominee for the Carnegie Foundation’s United States Professor of the Year. Since becoming judicial education manager, he has been recognized by the National Center for State Courts as a Certified Court Manager, awarded the Chief Justice of Missouri's Judicial Civics Award and has served on the Board of Directors of NASJE since 2014.
By Michael Roosevelt, Senior Analyst and Judicial Educator, Criminal Justice Services, Judicial Council of California
Michael Roosevelt
Last year, the Education and Curriculum Committee along with the Diversity, Access, and Fairness Committee, released its newest curriculum design, The Journey toward Diversity, Fairness, and Access through Education, which is a roadmap for judicial educators and practitioners wishing to develop or integrate fairness and bias related topics. Early curriculum adopters have lauded it.
However, to more widely disseminate the curriculum, my co-faculty Karen Thorson, Consultant and former director of the Center for Judicial Education and Research for the Judicial Council of California and I introduced the membership to the curriculum in a plenary session, “NASJE’s Newest Curriculum: Diversity, Fairness, and Access”, during the 2015 NASJE Annual Conference in Seattle, Washington. The content of the curriculum design addresses fairness issues relevant to the work of judicial branch educators. The design prompts consideration of each educator’s own actions with regards to diversity, access and fairness, as well as their management of fairness courses for judges and court personnel. The goals of the session as described in the NASJE Conference program were as follows:
This plenary session has two purposes. The first is to engage judicial branch educators in an experiential learning situation to transform their perspectives and professional actions regarding diversity, fairness, and access. The second is to directly connect them to the real-world uses and practical application of NASJE’s recently adopted curriculum design on diversity, fairness, and access, which is the basis for the learning situation.
Rather than proceed methodically through each section of the design, an unsatisfying approach at best, we selected key content areas suitable for the size of the group and the time available. We frequently had judicial branch educators reference the curriculum design to make connections between selected content and delivery method. For example, before discussing bias (content), participants were asked to participate in a brief table group (delivery method) exercise requiring them to share an experience of being treated unfairly (connection).
Additionally, we encouraged participants to connect the curriculum content to the practical world inhabited by judicial educators. For example, one thing judicial educators must do is recruit faculty from diverse backgrounds. Rather than simply discuss how to select diverse faculty (content) for access, fairness and diversity courses, we modeled it: I’m African American and my co-faculty white. While we acknowledge that the availability of diverse faculty varies by state, judicial educators should, whenever possible, identify and recruit diverse faculty.
We hope, in the future, to deliver the diversity, fairness, and access content from the curriculum design as a webinar and reach those who were not able to join us in Seattle. Look for the webinar in 2016.
By Natalie Carrillo, Research and Evaluation Assistant, Pima County Arizona Juvenile Court, and Matthew Estes, Training and Education Coordinator, Arizona Superior Court in Pima County.
This article reflects upon the July 2015 Implicit Bias training program in Pima County, Arizona (Tucson) and offers lessons and tips that other judicial educators can use as they create their own implicit bias coursework.
Introduction
How do courts deal with issues such as the disproportion of minority representation in the criminal and juvenile justice systems? How can court employees and judges act to overcome the perception that the criminal justice system is biased towards minority populations, as shown in research at ProceduralFairness.org and elsewhere? Pima County courts chose to tackle implicit bias training as one facet of their efforts to combat these and related issues in courts in Tucson, Arizona.
The Pima County court system welcomed two national experts in the emerging field of implicit bias in July, 2015. They taught six sessions on three different court campuses in Tucson in an effort to improve staff awareness of how associations, attitudes and habits shape and affect our daily interactions with court customers and with each other.
Michael Brownstein, Assistant Professor of Philosophy at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, and Alex Madva, Visiting Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Cal Poly Pomona taught the classes. The instructors came highly recommended by those interested in implicit bias both academically and professionally.
Over 300 Court employees participated in implicit bias training at three different training locations July 22-24, 2015. The turnout was one of the largest in Court history for a training event, and drew walk-in attendance from units across the spectrum of the judicial branch, from the Pascua Yaqui tribe to the Pima County Sheriff’s Office.
What is implicit bias, and why is it tricky to teach?
Dr. Alex Madva of Cal Poly Pomona
Implicit bias arises from attitudes or stereotypes that affect our understanding, actions, and decisions in an unconscious manner. It may be helpful to think of implicit biases as unspoken stereotypes that we are repeatedly exposed to through media, social segregation, learning at early developmental stages, and normal habits of mind like categorization and heuristics.
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy invites us to consider the plight of “Frank” when defining implicit bias:
Frank … explicitly believes that women and men are equally suited for careers outside the home. Despite his explicitly egalitarian belief, Frank might nevertheless implicitly associate women with the home, and this implicit association might lead him to behave in any number of biased ways, from trusting feedback from female co-workers less to hiring equally qualified men over women.
While implicit biases often lie deep within our subconscious minds, their effects have been found to have stark consequences. Researchers have found implicit biases affecting behavior negatively across the spectrum of social interaction. In recent studies, problematic implicit biases appear to cause unfavorable judgment of minority job applicants, and even lead to harsher sentences for inmates with more “Afrocentric” facial features.
The topic of implicit bias is both new and nuanced. Trainers who are preparing court audiences for their initial encounter with implicit bias should prime their audience before the class. Examples of helpful priming include detailed course descriptions and emails with links to academic resources. Trainers who know their audience may consider inviting participants to attempt one of several online exercises that promote awareness of implicit bias, which is an effective way to get participants talking about it.
How can a trainer build an implicit bias class that meets his/her courts’ specific needs?
In our sessions, Drs. Brownstein and Madva explained the theory of implicit bias, how social scientists became interested in studying it, why implicit bias is an important concept for court employees to understand, and what strategies can be employed to combat it in the courts and in everyday life.
We came to know our instructors very well over the several months we spent planning and executing the July training, and learned that their implicit bias research interests lie at the intersection of the ethical implications of our subconscious mental attitudes and the research of psychologists interested in social cognition. And while Drs. Brownstein and Madva were excited to discuss their scholarly interests upon inquiry, they were also extremely capable of using everyday language and real-world examples to ensure that all attentive participants could understand and apply the lessons of implicit bias research.
Our instructors’ examples and explanations centered on the Implicit Association Test (IAT), which detects the strength of a person’s association between representations of objects or concepts that the mind organizes into different categories. Drs. Madva and Brownstein presented an array of research results from the IAT that indicate the existence of troubling bias against members of certain racial, gender, and other social groups.
Our deliberate focus on the IAT was a direct result of observation of our audience in previous situations. Years of course evaluation responses show that Pima County court employees find arguments with relevant statistical data more persuasive than arguments without such data. This type of activity also helps participants understand the power of association without the feeling of judgment that can be involved in other discussion. Other audiences may find IAT data too rudimentary, in which case a deeper discussion of policy implications might be preferred.
Why did we decide to offer Introductory and Advanced level classes?
Drs. Brownstein and Madva presented two levels of implicit bias training. The introductory class was designed for the court employee who had little previous experience with implicit bias or none at all. Titled “Understanding Implicit Bias: The Causes and Effects of Implicit Bias in Criminal Justice and Education,” the introductory class provided a thorough historical overview of implicit bias, followed by an explanation of what the IAT is and how it works. An interactive class exercise completed the content in the first hour. In the second hour of the class, the instructors explained the negative outcomes predicted and explained by the IAT, and concluded with a brief discussion of reforms that could be made in light of implicit bias findings.
The advanced class, titled “Overcoming Implicit Bias: Individual and Institutional Reforms,” started with a condensed version of the introductory class. The remaining 90 minutes were devoted to a deeper exploration of potential reforms, and more in-depth group discussion of those reforms.
We had anticipated that participants would self-sort into the Introductory and Advanced classes based upon the descriptions we provided in training bulletins and emails. However, that turned out not to be the case. Some court employees who had a strong understanding of implicit bias attended the introductory session, and many court employees attended both the introductory and advanced classes. In both cases, we received constructive feedback on the course evaluation forms that parts of the class felt somewhat rudimentary, or repetitive. Upon reflection, the advanced class would have been more effective for the audience had we chosen to present completely new content from the introductory class. This would have allowed Drs. Madva and Brownstein to delve deeper into ideas for institutional level reforms among other things.
What methods helped us to obtain useful data from the implicit bias trainings?
The idea for implicit bias training originated from a recommendation for a project to help reduce disproportionality in the juvenile justice system in Pima County, Arizona. Due to the nature of the project, it was important to gauge whether the trainings had any measurable effect on the participants. We considered what type of measurement would not only measure change in participant responses, but also provide participants with an opportunity to provide feedback and suggestions for future trainings.
Dr. Michael Brownstein of the John Jay School of Criminal Justice
Participants took part in three surveys. The first survey was completed prior to the training, the second immediately following the training, and a third survey was sent to them three months after the training. The same tool measured participant responses to the same statements before and after the training. Drs. Brownstein and Madva recommended a tool used in a previous study to measure implicit bias education. The third survey was online and assessed whether participants found the training useful and also provided a forum for feedback and suggestions. The surveys showed that the training raised participants’ awareness of implicit bias and its effects on their decision-making.
What did participants think about the implicit bias trainings?
Court employees found Implicit Bias training to be provocative, informative and pertinent to their employment. One attendee wrote that the instructors “did a very good job presenting the information on a topic that can be difficult.” Another recognized “that you have to stretch your mind to be constantly aware of your own biases.”
Several thoughtful attendees asked about the IAT design itself, as response times that lag by mere tenths of a second are deemed significant. Drs. Madva and Brownstein explained that the IAT is one of the most widely used and reviewed tools in social science research. While they did not proclaim any definitive causal links between implicit bias research and prejudiced attitudes, the professors did explain how and why implicit bias is an emerging explanation for the persistence of racist and discriminatory attitudes in twenty-first century America.
As mentioned above, we anticipated that the topic of implicit bias would create some confusion and uneasiness in our audience. And while we did receive some commentary to that effect (“A study can be made to find whatever statistics we want”; “It’s a ridiculous concept meant only to divide and create negative feelings among the masses”), these comments represented a small subset of the larger group. A much larger cluster of comments indicated that participants found the training to be provocative, supported by helpful statistics and useful research, and that the training could be practically applied in the court environment.
How are we keeping up the momentum?
The July implicit bias training was well-received in the aggregate, and the high-quality instruction provided by Drs. Brownstein and Madva has had positive effects on the progress of similar coursework. Current and future coursework on the topic of implicit bias is a high priority, given that one of the instructors’ key takeaways was that “debiasing” is more likely to happen in an environment where implicit bias education is emphasized and frequent. As Court educators know all too well, the lessons of a great training begin to scatter and dissipate if they are not followed by classes on similar topics, with similar themes.
In November, 2015 Court employees were invited to participate in “American Denial,” a class which used a PBS documentary of the same title to explore the impact of implicit bias in a smaller setting. The smaller class afforded trainers the opportunity to solicit more feedback from the participants, and future offerings of the class will provide scenarios with examples of implicitly biased action for participants to consider. Another class, which uses the film Fruitvale Station as a basis for discussion, also puts forth the concept of implicit bias and its relationship to prejudice and racism. Both of these classes will be offered throughout the coming year in an effort to maintain awareness of the impact of implicit bias in the criminal justice system.
Moving forward, discussions are underway to provide more opportunities for Court employees to encounter and wrestle with implicit bias topics. We also plan to use the suggestions and feedback from our employee surveys to develop future trainings.
[For further information, an Implicit Bias Resource Guide is posted in the members-only area.]
Natalie Carrillo is a Research and Evaluation Assistant at Pima County Juvenile Court (Tucson, AZ) where she works on the Disproportionate Minority Contact Intervention Project among other court projects.Prior to joining the Court, she worked in education for over ten years.She earned a Bachelor’s degree in History from The Colorado College, and a Master’s in Public Policy from Johns Hopkins University.
Matthew Estes is a Training and Education Coordinator for the Arizona Superior Court in Pima County. In that role, he brings trainings to judicial staff across many different platforms, and works specifically with juvenile detention and probation staff to meet their training needs on a case-by-case basis. Previously, Matthew was an instructor and curriculum designer at the high school and community college levels.
In 2004, judicial education became mandatory for Nebraska judges, probation and Court staff. In 2005, judicial branch education staff were hired, and in 2006 the program was designed and launched. The funding for the mandatory judicial education program came from “dollar filing fees” meaning a dollar from every filing fee received was directed towards the program. The fund receives approximately $374,000 per year which has not been a tremendous budget for growing a program.
The program started with a director, Carole McMahon-Boies, and one clerical staff. Carole’s biggest challenge was to grow the program on her given budget. Because of Carole’s restricted budget, her main education delivery method for Court staff became distance learning. Carole realized she needed more funding to grow and so she reached out to another part of the judicial branch that was untapped – the probation division. Strategically, she knew the probation division received funding from the general appropriation fund. Probation had just begun an ambitious project to implement evidence based practices, and training initiatives blossomed. Once Carole established a firm partnership with probation, far more funding was available. In addition to partnering with probation Carole undertook a new program in Nebraska – Attorney CLE – which became mandatory in 2009. This provided the opportunity to share some resources between programs.
The new Judicial Branch Education Training Center opened in October of 2015 in Lincoln, Nebraska, less than 10 years since Carole took the helm. In its humble roots, the offices for the program were housed in a historic setting, the Supreme Court law library “because nobody uses a law library any more” Carole said. The trainings were conducted in a hotel training space. But because of her fruitful efforts to grow the program, they soon outgrew the space. Now, all the training is housed in the Judicial Branch Education Training Center, including the training done by the Court Improvement Program which provides education regarding juvenile issues.
While Carole misses her old historic office setting, she’s enthusiastic about her new modern home equipped with state of the art technology. The training center has four training rooms, all equipped with 90” screen video TVs that are networked but can also operate autonomously, there is a retractable curtain to partition the rooms for quick accommodation, and significant acoustics attributed to the top-notch speaker system.
Another highlight Carole identified in the new training center was the kitchen. Having the kitchen is an upgrade that makes it convenient for all of the probation officers that gather regularly from across the state for new officer training. The officers practically live at the facility for a nine week training in Lincoln. There have been several new probation initiatives implemented by the Nebraska legislature. To give you an idea of the size of the undertaking, there are approximately 220 new probation officers hired in the last 18 months, all of which have gone through new probation officer training through judicial branch education. Other highlights of the building include its live two-way video conferencing capabilities offered state-wide. The building also offers many conveniences to the attending judges which include parking right outside of the facilities (which they didn’t have at their old location) and they have partnered with a hotel right behind the facility so it’s an easy walk across the street to class for those that live in more remote regions of the state.
To give you a sense of the driving force that is Carole, there are a total of 1800 judges and court staff in Nebraska, 109 judges in her state. Those are modest numbers compared to other states. But through her campaign she was able to grow from a staff that included just her as director and one clerical staff to her current fully staffed state which includes a probation education director, a court staff director, four trainers (which includes ex-probation officers and attorneys to do the court staff training), a distance learning specialist, and two clerical staff. Not to mention her instrumental role in delivering a state of the art training center for her judges.
Through this entire process, Carole learned that she needs to find partners to accomplish her goals. No [wo]man is an island and she relied on outside resources. She said “it’s amazing what’s out there and that doesn’t cost anything.” Her advice to her colleagues is “get creative, it’s amazing what you can achieve.”
About Carole McMahon-Boies In May of 2014, the Nebraska Supreme Court named Carole McMahon-Boies as Administrator for Judicial Branch Education and the Attorney Services Division of the Nebraska Judicial Branch. As administrator for Attorney Services, Carole provides support to the Counsel for Discipline, Mandatory Continuing Legal Education Commission, Nebraska State Bar Commission, and the Commission on the Unauthorized Practice of Law. Additionally, she retained her position as education director for the Judicial Branch providing educational offerings for all judicial branch employees and judges. She has served as Director of Judicial Branch Education since October 2006. Prior to her position with the Court, Carole practiced law for 25 years mainly in the area of labor litigation. Several of her cases were the subject of published opinions in the Federal Circuit Courts and the Nebraska Supreme Court. She is a member of the bar in both Nebraska and Iowa and is admitted to practice before the U.S. Supreme Court. She is a past president of the Robert Van Pelt American Inns of Court. Her teaching experience includes adjunct faculty for many years with Nebraska Wesleyan, Doane College, Union College, and Hamilton College where she taught Labor Law, Human Resource Management, Criminal Law, Contracts, and Business Law.
Leadership development is a personal journey that most often takes place in public. Admired leadership characteristics (see endnote 2) are surprisingly consistent across organizations, cultures, and professions (Kouzes and Posner 2012). Though the characteristics may be the same, how they are expressed will distinguish successful leaders from those who are not. I contend that judicial branch educators (hereafter referred to as educators) are leaders and what they lead is change through education.
In 1995, I wrote an article for NASJE News titled “Creating Presence”. I heard from many colleagues about how helpful the concepts were in establishing the importance of education in the courts. Now, two decades later, creating presence is even more important. External forces that will not abate increasingly drive contemporary change. Directly meeting the challenges of change with a clear vision and unified voice is required to thrive in what will likely be a very exciting and frustrating time.
To meet the external forces with confidence, educators must know what the forces are, have a strong leadership plan, develop a versatile programmatic foundation, and retain staff members who are mission driven. One of the most comprehensive syntheses and analyses of the trends in global change was conducted by Al Gore and published in his book The Future (2013). He identified six emerging trends that are present now and will continue to expand in their size and influence for a long time to come. The trends are:
Earth Inc.—representing the deeply connected global economy that operates as an entity unto itself, which directs capital flow, labor, consumerism, and national governments.
The Global Mind—representing the planet-wide electronic communications grid that connects billions of ideas, people, information, and products that have given rise to all forms of intelligent devices, including robots.
Power in the Balance—representing a new balance of economic, political, and military power where the new equilibrium is shifting and multiplying global power centers.
Outgrowth—representing rapid and unsustainable population growth depleting the resources that humans have relied upon since the beginning of time.
The Reinvention of Life and Death—representing new biological, biochemical, genetic, and materials science technologies changing the molecular structure of life itself.
The Edge—representing the emergence of a new relationship between human civilization and the earth’s atmosphere and climate that allowed humankind to flourish for millennia.
You may think that there is nothing new here. That was my original reaction. However, the analysis presented by Gore demonstrates that the shifts are deeper, broader, and more rapid than originally envisioned. Thus, their impact is greater and more systemic. Educators who stay current with global trends can readily determine the impact these trends will have on the types of cases that will come before the courts resulting in the need to change the subject matter of education programs. What they may not have considered is how to maintain a strong and vibrant education organization in the midst of the changes. In this discussion, I focus on ten areas for educators to consider in their own leadership development, as well as the development of their organizations. They are: guiding philosophy, mission, values, voice, thinking, acting, competence, forward-looking, reflecting, and renewal.
Guiding Philosophy
Education in a judicial system is often defined as continuing professional development and training to address the presenting knowledge, skills, and abilities performance needs of judges and court personnel. It is true that education involves the aforementioned. I also challenge educators to use education as an impetus for change thus, leading courts to a place of prominence that provides certainty and stability in a changing world.
If judicial education is a vehicle for change then educators are the change agents. By extension educators are leaders. They must have a guiding philosophy about the role of education. Casting judicial education as a change movement implies that the educator’s philosophy must be larger, more powerful, and more long-range than it would otherwise be. Under this framework, judicial education is not creating educational events. It is leading the court organization to greater levels of achievement and judges and court personnel to excellent performance that transforms lives. Such a guiding philosophy will require educators to challenge the typical processes, goals, content, and intent of education. In short, they must challenge themselves and others to take a different path and to seek greater results. “Challenge is the opportunity for greatness. People do their best when there’s the chance to change the way things are…Leaders venture out. They test and they take risks with bold ideas” (Kouzes and Posner 2012, 156). Educators who see themselves as leaders will not be complacent about the role and opportunity of education to significantly improve the quality of life of those people who depend on the courts to be heard and protected. Adopting a guiding philosophy provides educators with a tool they can use to measure the progress they are making in developing education and training that challenges courts to meet their calling with strength and commitment.
Can adopting a guiding philosophy do even more? Yes, it can. A guiding philosophy becomes the center around which everything circles. Once a guiding philosophy is established, it can be used for many purposes. Perhaps one of the most important, in addition to educational programming, is recruiting education staff. Job announcements, position descriptions, and interview questions that are centered on the guiding philosophy of the organization act as the first level of screening. In order to ensure that educators are building organizations that live their mission and values, they must have staff members who are passionate about the guiding philosophy. Without that passion, educators will spend valuable time trying to motivate people who cannot be motivated because they do not “feel it.” Jim Collins in Good to Great (2001) referred to this as getting the right people on the bus without which, he contends, no leader can succeed.
Mission
The mission of judicial education is often explained in terms of inputs, outputs, and outcomes using educational terminology. Under this framework education seems devoid of passion and the ability to inspire. People are not motivated when they are educated to be ordinary and that includes education staff. Therefore, the entire organization must make transformation its sole mission. Jan Phillips, author of The Art of Original Thinking-The Making of a Thought Leader describes the power of transformation: “Transformation originates in people who see a better way or a fairer world, people who reveal themselves, disclose their dreams, and unfold their hopes in the presence of others. And this unfolding, this revelation of raw, unharnessed desire, this deep longing to be a force for good in the world is what inspires others to feel their own longings, to remember their own purpose, and to act, perhaps for the first time, in accordance with their inner spirit” (2006, 11).
An inspiring mission statement has many purposes. It serves to guide personnel selection, budgeting, and educational programming.
The education organization’s mission statement provides educators with an excellent second-level screening tool to evaluate potential job candidates. Individuals that educators chose for second interviews will require greater scrutiny. Do they have what it takes to be part of a team that is educating for transformation? Educators already know that candidates are passionate about the guiding philosophy or a second interview would not be scheduled. Now, the educators must discern whether candidates can internalize the guiding philosophy so that their passion drives them to live and breathe the transformation mission of education for change. Educators can make that assessment by using the organization’s mission statement as the basis for interview questions. For example, educators can ask candidates to discuss what the mission statement means, how they believe it defines organizational identity, and how it can be applied when developing and delivering education programs.
Mission statements are also an excellent tool for building and gaining support for the education budget. An education organization that is preparing to address new subject matter or new delivery methods may require different infusions of money from multiple sources. Therefore, every item in the budget should be tied to the mission statement in a way that guides all resource and expenditure decisions. Educators must carefully consider the budget justification packages that accompany any legislative or executive branch request, as well as those requests that are part of grant applications. Failure to do so will likely result in an unsuccessful attempt to secure funding.
The educational programming, itself, must be a full embodiment of the mission. Each offering is an opportunity to be an expression of the transformation mission. From needs assessment to instructor selection to program content to teaching, the mission must act as the center from which everything else emanates.
Values
The very act of educating is an expression of values. Consider this explanation of values by Kouzes and Posner: “Values constitute your personal ‘bottom line’. They serve as guides to action. They inform the priorities you set and the decisions you make. They tell you when to say yes and when to say no. They also help you explain the choices you make and why you made them…All of the most critical decisions a leader makes involve values” (2012, 49).
Judicial systems that offer education to judges and court personnel are making a statement about the importance of knowledge and information in evolving the skills, abilities, and aptitudes of its members. The values that leaders hold become evident by what they say and do. Educators as leaders must know what they value. Their values are articulated through the way they approach education from content selection to delivery format to defining learner groups. Each and every education opportunity and challenge is an avenue for educators to express the values they hold about the role of courts in society. The importance of educators discovering and living their values cannot be overstated and that is certainly true if they want to lead.
Organizational development is a monumental task for educators. It starts with understanding that attending to the whole court organization is part of the mission of education. Articulating this mission as a value demonstrates that the courts will not settle for anything less than the best—the best personnel, the best budgets, the best services, and the best programs. To further a value-centered approach, educators can lead the way by evaluating whether the programming meets the values of the organization. As such, living the values is more than a slogan—it is a call to action.
Voice
When leaders develop their voice, they express their guiding philosophy, mission, and values in their own words. In so doing, they are perceived as authentic. The extent to which a person is authentic is the extent to which they will be trusted. If there is any incongruity between what leaders say and do, it will immediately be recognized and their credibility and authority will be comprised. Stephen M.R. Covey in his book The Speed of Trust-The One thing That Changes Everything explained the importance of trust this way: “Simply put, trust means confidence. The opposite of trust—distrust—is suspicion. When you trust people, you have confidence in them—in their integrity and in their abilities. When you distrust people, you are suspicious of them—of their integrity, their agenda, their capabilities, or their track record. It’s that simple” (2006, 5). Educators as leaders must develop ways of communicating that are consistent with what they care about. In short, they must find and use their voice to achieve their goal of advancing the rule of law through the expert preparation of judges and court personnel. A consistent and authentic voice sends the signal that the advancement of the judiciary can safely be placed in the hands of the educator.
How can consistency of voice be conveyed across the management and operations of the education organization? Using consistent voice can be evaluated by matching guiding philosophies, missions, and values against what the educator speaks, writes, and does. It is not just the educator who will be evaluated for consistency in voice. Others associated with the education enterprise will also be assessed for their consistent messaging, including staff members, advisory committee members, and instructors. It is the responsibility of the educator to institute a consistent voice across the education organization. While this requires discipline, it is necessary or credibility will be lost. Where there is no credibility there is no success. Thus, individual performance appraisal must include the achievement of consistent voice.
Thinking
Asking the right questions and developing an intellectual framework to assess the veracity of the answers is the core of critical thinking. Asking questions is not foreign to educators as they routinely do so in the form of needs assessment and evaluation. Developing a critical thinking stance is necessary when the educator is a leader. Browne and Keeley in their book Asking the Right Questions A Guide to Critical Thinking (2010) explained critical thinking this way: “Critical thinking consists of an awareness of a set of interrelated critical questions, plus the ability and willingness to ask and answer them at appropriate times” (3). In the same book, they also explained that there are two types of critical thinking—weak-sense and strong-sense. They distinguish the two forms: “Weak-sense critical thinking is the use of critical thinking to defend your current beliefs. Strong-sense critical thinking is the use of the same skills to evaluate all claims and beliefs, especially your own” (8).
To sustain judicial education as a champion of change, the educator must ask the hard and probing questions that may lead to unpopular answers and issues that the judiciary doesn’t want to acknowledge or address. The very act of educating can produce critical thinking results if education is a forum for open, honest, and probing discussions expressed from multiple viewpoints. It is very easy for judicial systems to be insular and for weak-sense thinking to flourish. Brown and Keeley (2010) listed the four values of critical thinking, which are instructive for the development of educators as strong-sense leaders who in turn develop educational experiences that promote strong-sense thinking among the learners. The four values are:
Autonomy. “Surely, we all want to pick and choose from the widest possible array of possibilities; otherwise, we may miss the one decision or option that we would have chosen if only we had not paid attention to only those who shared our value priorities. Supercharged autonomy requires us to listen to those with value priorities different from our own” (13).
Curiosity. “…you need to listen and read, really listen and read. Other people have the power to move you forward, to liberate you from your current condition of partial knowledge. To be a critical thinker requires you to then ask questions about what you have encountered. Part of what you gain from other people is their insights and understanding, when what they have to offer meets the standards of good reasoning” (13-14).
Humility. “Certainly some of us have insights that others do not have, but each of us is very limited in what we can do, and at honest moments we echo Socrates when he said that he knew that he did not know. Once we accept this reality, we can better recognize that our experiences with other people can fill in at least a few of the gaps in our present understanding” (14).
Respect for good reasoning wherever you find it.”…all conclusions and opinions are not equally worthwhile. When you find strong reasoning, regardless of the race, age, wealth, or citizenship of the speaker or writer, rely on it until a better set of reasoning comes along” (14).
Browne and Keeley (2010) instruct people to become critical thinkers and engage in good reasoning by asking the following questions:
What are the issues and conclusions?
What are the reasons?
What words or phrases are ambiguous?
What are the value and descriptive assumptions?
Are there any fallacies in the reasoning?
How good is the evidence—intuition, personal experience, testimonials, and appeals to authority?
How good is the evidence—personal observation, research studies, case examples, and analogies?
Are there rival causes?
Are the statistics deceptive?
What significant information is omitted?
What reasonable conclusions are possible?
Edward De Bono (1999) encourages leaders to engage in new ways of thinking and he does so through his Six Hats method (see endnote 3). DeBono contends that people put themselves in thinking boxes, which reduces their ability to see a different future and also narrows their actions. “From the past we create standard situations. We judge into which “standard situation box” a new situation falls. Once we have made this judgement (sic), our course of action is clear. Such a system works very well in a stable world. In a stable world the standard situations of the past still apply. But in a changing world the standard situations may no longer apply. Instead of judging our way forward, we need to design our way forward” (3). Educators who lead change can develop learning experiences that result in new designs replacing the old situation boxes of reasoning. It is clear from the trends discussed in The Future (Gore 2013), deep and probing thinking is essential for survival. Therefore, to engage consistently at such a level, educators must be willing to question “what is” to get to “what can be.” According to Warren Berger (2014) it is all about asking the more beautiful question: “A beautiful question is an ambitious yet actionable question that can begin to shift the way we perceive or think about something—and that might serve as a catalyst to bring about change” (8).
Acting
Acting in the realm of education is often defined as curriculum development and program planning. It is indeed action—purposeful action. As Kouzes and Posner wrote: “Leadership is not about who you are; it’s about what you do” (2012, 15). How educators spend their time sends a message about what they value and how they will lead.
The Hedgehog Concept put forward by Jim Collins in his books Good to Great (2001) and Good to Great in the Social Sector (2005) is instructive related to the action of organizations and the people who lead them. While the Hedgehog Concept was initially developed for the private sector with a profit motive, Collins adapted it for the public sector because it can be applied to organizations with a social mission. The Hedgehog Concept is portrayed as three overlapping circles that when working at optimal performance transforms the organization from good to great (2005, 19). The circles have resonance for the courts and can be a factor in developing educational experiences that ignite and support change. “Circle 1: Passion—Understanding what your organization stands for, including its core values, mission, and purpose. Circle 2: Best at—Understanding what your organization can uniquely contribute to the people it touches, better than any other organization on the planet. Circle 3: Resource engine—Understanding what best drives your resource engine, broken into three parts: time, money, and brand” (2005, 19).
Courts are the enforcers of the rule of law. Courts have a mission like no other. Educators can lead through igniting the passion of judges and others to be the best at solving disputes and delivering justice. Thus, the Hedgehog Concept is appropriately applied to the courts and can be advanced by educators when they act as leaders of change. Consider the role that courts will be called upon to play related to Earth Inc., The Global Mind, Power in the Balance, Outgrowth, The Reinvention of Life and Death, and The Edge (Gore 2013). Holding the Hedgehog Concept as an axis for action will become even more important in the coming decades.
Competence
“At some level, competence connects with our dreams, with that part of us that yearns for unity with something greater than ourselves. We want to matter” (Wlodkowski 2008, 309). Educators must be competent in creating competence in others. Therefore, they must excel in adult learning theory, instructional design, subject matter development, teaching methodologies in traditional and electronic formats, needs assessment, and evaluation. Educators as leaders “…significantly increase people’s belief in their own ability to make a difference. They move from being in control to giving over control to others, becoming their coach. They help others learn new skills, develop existing talents, and provide the institutional supports required for ongoing growth and change. In the final analysis leaders turn their constituents into leaders” (Kouzes and Posner 2012, 243).
Educators lead the development of competence and confidence across the judicial branch, which is essential for a fully functioning independent judiciary. In so doing, educators are functioning at peak performance. Peak performance is referred to as flow. “People often refer to being ‘in the flow’ when they feel that they are performing effortlessly and expertly despite the difficulty of the experience. They are confident that their skills match the level of challenge of the experience, even though the challenge might be a bit of a stretch” (Kouzes and Posner 2012, 256). In order for educators to develop peak performance in others, they must first do it for themselves.
Forward-Looking
Effective educators address problems while simultaneously looking over the rim to see what is coming. The research conducted by Kouzes and Posner (2012) related to what people most want in a leader are honesty, forward-looking, competence, and inspiration (2012, 34-35). These elements of leadership remained consistent from 1987 to 2012; and, it has also remained consistent across countries, cultures, ethnicities, organizational functions and hierarchies, genders, levels of education, and age groups (Kouzes and Posner 2012). Leaders who are futuristic seem to command more credibility and, therefore, more respect. “Constituents also must believe that their leader knows where they’re headed and has a vision for the future. An expectation that their leaders be forward-looking is what sets leaders apart from other credible individuals” (Kouzes and Posner 2012, 37).
Education without vision will not drive excellence and certainly will not create change. John M. Bryson in his book Strategic Planning for Public and Nonprofit Organizations (2011) explained what is encompassed in the creation of a vision. “The vision should emphasize purposes, behavior, performance criteria, decision rules, and standards that serve the public and create public value…the vision should include a promise that the organization will support its members’ pursuit of the vision” (2011, 273). When educators lead vision creation, they move from individual action to group action. “When creating with others, all of the aspects of the process are magnified and multiplied due to the additional creators involved…the emotion involved in creating is for something that exists in the imagination” (Conner 1999, 36). While leaders must have a vision for the future, vision making for an organization is a group activity that must ignite the hearts and minds of those involved.
Howard Gardner in 5 Minds for the Future (2008) discussed the kinds of minds that people will need to thrive in the future.
Disciplined mind: “The disciplined mind has mastered at least one way of thinking—a distinctive mode of cognition that characterizes a specific scholarly discipline, craft, or profession” (3).
Synthesizing mind: “The synthesizing mind takes information from disparate sources, understands and evaluates that information objectively, and puts it together in ways that make sense to the synthesizer and also to other persons. Valuable in the past, the capacity to synthesize becomes ever more crucial as information continues to mount at dizzying rates” (3).
Creating mind: “…the creating mind breaks new ground. It puts forth new ideas, poses unfamiliar questions, conjures up fresh ways of thinking, and arrives at unexpected answers” (3).
Respectful mind: “…the respectful mind notes and welcomes differences between human individuals and between human groups, tries to understand these others, and seeks to work effectively with them” (3).
Ethical mind: “…the ethical mind ponders the nature of one’s work and the needs and desires of the society in which one lives. This mind conceptualizes how workers can serve purposes beyond self-interest and how citizens can work unselfishly to improve the lot of all” (3).
Each of the minds just described may cast the future differently. The educator is perfectly positioned to develop the five minds for the future through the educational process. However, educators must be prepared to develop their own minds because leaders always go first.
Reflection
Reflection is essential so that thinking and acting remain purposeful. Parker Palmer in The Active Life: Wisdom for Work, Creativity, and Caring (1990) discussed the need to engage in reflection on the nature of action. “Ultimately, action will help to reveal what the reality is, if we pay attention to its outcomes. These are the crucial links between action and contemplation, for the function of contemplation in all its forms is to penetrate illusion and help us to touch reality” (25). The work of educating requires a great deal of reflection as educating is leading people to new heights of awareness and action. It is a journey of discovery for both the learner and the educator. Public life and the life of leaders can be full of frenetic activity that offers little time for reflection. Therefore, creating reflection time must be intentional. Education that champions change implies that both the educators and learners have engaged in deep thought. Kouzes and Posner (2012) believe that a leader’s ability to excel is dependent on how well the leader knows him/herself and that knowledge comes from inner guidance that is gained through reflection.
Renewal
Renewal implies regeneration—a period of intellectual and physical rest that result in new levels of commitment and motivation. We often think of leadership in terms of grand displays that are larger than life. The truth is that leadership is mastering everyday events. Renewal works the same way in that it is an everyday event without which we will not thrive. What renews one person may not renew another. Exercise, meditation, yoga, reading, gardening, or just sitting with a cup of coffee or tea can be as renewing as a month in the mountains or a day on the beach. Renewal is personal. Renewal is good for the soul. Renewal is mandatory.
Michael A. Singer in his book The Untethered Soul: The Journey Beyond Yourself (2007) contends that the voices in our minds prevent us from living in the present. Living in the present is the only way to renew. Thus, we must find time to disconnect and just be.
Concluding Thoughts
The promise of education is tremendous. The reality of creating change through education is daunting but possible. Education leaders and court leaders—judges and administrators—must commit to the vision of placing education at the center of the administration of justice. Such a commitment will require the selection of educators who are leaders of change.
Educators in the judiciary must have three concepts of their role in courts. One concept is that of curriculum planner, program administrator, teacher, technologist, and evaluator. The second concept is that of a mentor, coach, and leader who provides others with the tools and inspiration they need to reach greater heights of professional performance resulting in the courts being the best in the world at creating justice for all. Third, is organizational caretaker of the soul of the courts through assuring the expression of the mission and values of the courts.
Educators as change leaders should ask three fundamental questions: What world do we want to live in? What role can the court play in creating and sustaining that world? How do we get there together? The answers likely can be found in original thinking. Jan Phillips posits that original thinking is the only thing that will take us to new places of understanding and doing—“…there is a kind of friction as opposing thoughts rub against each other, there is also the potential for creative fire that comes with that friction. And as original thinkers, that’s what we’re after” (2006, 92).
Educators through the curriculum development and program delivery process can create the climate for change that will prepare the courts to meet the future, as outlined by Gore (2013) and likely other futurists who came before him. Dan Cohen (2003, 3-4) identified 8 steps, which create a climate for change:
Increase urgency
Building guiding teams
Get the vision right
Communicate for buy-in
Enable action
Create short-term wins
Don’t let up
Make it stick
Educators must embody the change they wish to create remembering that change, to be successful, must eventually be owned by the system from the bottom up to the top down. “Hierarchical systems evolve from the bottom up. The purpose of the upper layers of the hierarchy is to serve the purposes of the lower layers” (Meadows 2008, 85). Educators must serve the top, the bottom, and all that lies in between—that is leading the edge.
1. The subject of this paper, judicial branch educators as change leaders, was presented at the 6th International Conference on the Training of the Judiciary which was held in 2013 and was sponsored by the International Organization of Judicial Training (IOJT). The conference paper will be published in an upcoming volume of the IOJT Journal. The concepts of the IOJT conference presentation were also presented at the 2014 National Association of State Judicial Educators (NASJE) annual conference. Upon the request of the NASJE President, the contents of the NASJE conference presentation were put to paper and are represented in this article—Maureen Conner. (back to text)
2. Kouzes and Posner (2012, 34-35) researched factors or attributes that comprised admired leadership characteristics among the research respondents from 1987 through 2012. The characteristics they measured over that period were: honest, forward-looking, competent, inspiring, intelligent, broad-minded, fair-minded, dependable, supportive, straightforward, cooperative, determined, courageous, ambitious, caring, loyal, imaginative, mature, self-controlled, and independent. The research respondents were from six continents: Africa, North America, South America, Asia, Europe, and Australia. The research respondents represented different cultures, ethnicities, organizational functions and hierarchies, genders, levels of education, and age groups. (back to text)
3. The Six Hats represent six ways of thinking and are color-coded. The White Hat considers facts and figures. The Red Hat explores emotions and feelings. The Black Hat is cautious and careful thinking. The Yellow Hat is speculative-positive thinking. The Green Hat is creative thinking. The Blue Hat focuses on control of thinking (DeBono 1999). (back to text)
Design for How People Learn(Voices that Matter) by Julie Dirksen (2011) Get it at AMAZON
In Design For How People Learn, you’ll discover how to use the key principles behind learning, memory, and attention to create materials that enable your audience to both gain and retain the knowledge and skills you’re sharing. Using accessible visual metaphors and concrete methods and examples, Design For How People Learn will teach you how to leverage the fundamental concepts of instructional design both to improve your own learning and to engage your audience.
Human Resource Development: Today And Tomorrow by Ronald R. Sims Get it at AMAZON
This book is written with the belief that HRD professionals will continue to learn, change and find ways to reinvent themselves and the profession individually and collectively as we move further into the 21st century. A major point of this book is that HRD will continue to become more and more important to organizational success. And, that in as calls for accountability and bottom line impact continue to rise, HRD professionals will be proactive in demonstrating their value to the organization.
The primary audience for this book is practicing HRM and HRD professionals, and other organizational leaders. The book provides tested and proven ideas important to demonstrating the value of HRD. From a practical viewpoint, it is based on actual experience, a strong research base, and accepted practices presented in an easy to read form.
A second target audience is students of HRD and HRM who are preparing for careers in this important field. This book will help them develop a solid foundation to the study of HRD practices that are key to HRD success regardless of the type of organization.
A third target audience is managers or leaders at all levels of an organization who are increasingly expected to take on HRD responsibilities while also partnering with HRD professionals. It offers these individuals a firsthand look at what they should expect of their HRD functions or areas and how they can encourage HRD professionals in their organizations to be accountable’ strategic partners in helping the organization achieve its success by getting the most out of its human capital.
Evaluating Training Programs: The Four Levels by Donald L. Kirkpatrick and James D. Kirkpatrick Get it at AMAZON
The “Kirkpatrick Model” for evaluating training programs is the most widely used approach in the corporate, government, and academic worlds. First developed in 1959, it focuses on four key areas: reaction, learning, behavior, and results. “Evaluating Training Programs” provides a comprehensive guide to Kirkpatrick’s four-level model, along with detailed case studies that show how the approach is used successfully in a wide range of programs and institutions.
A Practical Guide to Needs Assessment by Kavita Gupta Get it at AMAZON
Practical Guide to Needs Assessment offers a practical and comprehensive guide for practitioners who are responsible for
Introducing a training program
Creating adult education programs
Assessing the development needs of a workforce
Improving individual, group, organization or interorganizational performance in the workplace
Implementing community, national, or international development interventions
Designed as a resource for practitioners, this book is filled with how-to information, tips, and case studies. It shows how to use data-based needs assessments to frame people-related problems and performance, improvement opportunities to obtain support from those who are affected by the changes, make effective decision, and increase efficiency.
Created in 2012 in conjunction with the National Center for State Court’s Institute for Court Management, MCMI brings together judges, clerks, administrators and juvenile officers six times a year to explore the purposes and responsibilities of courts, measurement of court performance, case flow management, and managing technology projects, judicial finances and human resources. Over one hundred individuals from the courts have participated in MCMI.
Anthony Simones has been the Manager of Judicial Education in Missouri for almost five years. Holding a JD and PhD from the University of Tennessee, Dr. Simones has been a professor of government, law and criminology at Missouri State University, Columbia College, and Dalton State College. He is the recipient of the Missouri Governor’s Award for Teaching Excellence and is a three-time nominee for the Carnegie Foundation’s United States Professor of the Year. Since becoming judicial education manager, he has been recognized by the National Center for State Courts as a Certified Court Manager, awarded the Chief Justice of Missouri's Judicial Civics Award and has served on the Board of Directors of NASJE since 2014.
Natalie Carrillo is a Research and Evaluation Assistant at Pima County Juvenile Court (Tucson, AZ) where she works on the Disproportionate Minority Contact Intervention Project among other court projects.
Matthew Estes is a Training and Education Coordinator for the Arizona Superior Court in Pima County. In that role, he brings trainings to judicial staff across many different platforms, and works specifically with juvenile detention and probation staff to meet their training needs on a case-by-case basis. Previously, Matthew was an instructor and curriculum designer at the high school and community college levels.
In 2004, judicial education became mandatory for Nebraska judges, probation and Court staff. In 2005, judicial branch education staff were hired, and in 2006 the program was designed and launched. The funding for the mandatory judicial education program came from “dollar filing fees” meaning a dollar from every filing fee received was directed towards the program. The fund receives approximately $374,000 per year which has not been a tremendous budget for growing a program.
While Carole misses her old historic office setting, she’s enthusiastic about her new modern home equipped with state of the art technology. The training center has four training rooms, all equipped with 90” screen video TVs that are networked but can also operate autonomously, there is a retractable curtain to partition the rooms for quick accommodation, and significant acoustics attributed to the top-notch speaker system.
About Carole McMahon-Boies
Design for How People Learn (Voices that Matter) by Julie Dirksen (2011)
Human Resource Development: Today And 
Evaluating Training Programs: The Four Levels by Donald L. Kirkpatrick and James D. Kirkpatrick
A Practical Guide to Needs Assessment by Kavita Gupta