We are pleased to announce our NASJE Midwest Region Webinar: Using Technology to Train Rural Courts.
The webinar will be conducted on April 7, 2017 from 11:45 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. Central Time.
Open to all NASJE members. Every state has felt the pain of smaller budgets and fewer resources. Judicial education departments across the country have been tasked with providing more training despite shrinking budgets. In states like Missouri, the rural courts rely completely on the Office of State Court Administrator for their training and education. For almost 20 years, Missouri has used a blended learning approach, utilizing traditional classroom training, instructor led webinars, and e-learning to meet this challenge and ensure that the rural courts get the same quality training as the larger metropolitan courts.
Join us to learn about how Missouri has stepped up to the demands or providing quality education to all staff despite geography.
Faculty: Chris Adams has been with the Missouri Office of State Courts Administrator and worked in Judicial Education since 1999. He has been part of the Educational Technology team since its inception in 2001 and has been the Ed Tech Coordinator since 2010. Mr. Adams has a bachelor’s degree in criminal justice and a master’s degree in business administration. He is also a certified instructional designer and has more than 20 years of experience as a law enforcement officer working for city, county, and state agencies.
“Scientific evidence permeates the law” according to Justice Stephen Breyer (see note 1). His statement was specifically about scientific evidence in a trial. However, trials are not the only place where judges are being pressed to understand and then use the ever-expanding universe of research based knowledge that is available. While present in hearings and trials, there has been a particularly strong move to have judges apply such information in sentencing and probation supervision. The development of evidence-based sentencing, a concept based on a medical model, is merely one example (see note 2).
This expanding universe of scientific knowledge has engendered many discussions about the perceived need to increase the amount of science based education judges receive. Some argue that judges should be educated like scientists. The problem intrinsic this idea is that judges are specialists in the law, and generalists in everything else. Moreover, the vast majority of judges turned away from a scientific education, at least by the time they were in college and certainly by the time they were in law school. Law school teaches a different manner of seeking the truth than the scientific method.
After all, what scientist would accept a scientific proposition that while approximately 90% of people arrested will be convicted of a crime, each of these
people starts with the presumption that they are innocence of the charges? Beyond inclination and education, there is the question of time. Most judges are lucky if they receive two or three days of judicial educational during the course of the year. Much of that educational time is spent on updates on the current state of the law. Nonetheless, it is true that judges need to be given the tools to help them process scientific information in their different
roles as what Justice Breyer calls “evidentiary gatekeepers” and as “finders of reality based facts (see note 3).”
These different roles suggest there should be different educational approaches. When the judge is acting as an evidentiary gatekeeper, (for example, deciding whether the results of a drug test should be admitted in a trial) a thorough understanding of the rules on the admissibility of scientific evidence would be helpful. A judge who is sentencing a defendant and is trying to assess that person’s future behavior needs yet a different understanding — one based more on psychology and social science.
How does the judicial education community meet the varied educational needs of the judiciary? It starts with the recognition that judges are specialists in the law and generalists in everything else. As part of that legal specialization judges are the evidentiary gatekeepers for any scientific or technical evidence that is admitted in a trial. As the Supreme Court stated: “Daubert‘s gatekeeping requirement is to make certain that an expert, whether basing testimony upon professional studies or personal experience, employs in the courtroom the same level of intellectual rigor that characterizes the practice of an expert in the relevant field” (see note 4).
Providing judges with the tools to make better evidentiary decisions about the admissibiity of scientific evidence will also ensure that the trier of fact is not confused by poor or junk science. Gatekeeping will not help a judge better understand the emerging science about addiction when it comes to sentencing. Neither will it help with a risk assessment about a defendant’s future conduct. But, as sentencing is a part of the specialized training judges already receive, there is a wealth of training and conferences on this topic. For example, one need only look at the National Association of Drug Court Professionals annual conference for trainers who teach about every aspect of addiction and sentencing.
Still, not every judge has either the time or the interest to attend a national training. How can we better assist the judiciary in dealing with this flood of scientific evidence? One answer was developed by our colleagues in Canada created a bench book entitled the “Science Manual for Canadian Judges” (see note 5). Bench books and the trainings connected to them are an excellent means for helping judges keep current with the needs of their job. NAJSE should take a leadership role in creating such a manual.
“Science Manual for Canadian Judges” NATIONAL JUDICIAL INSTITUTE, INSTITUT NATIONAL DE LA MAGISTRATURE, 2013
ABOUT THE AUTHOR Judge Brian MacKenzie is an award winning judicial educator who retired from the bench after almost twenty-seven years of service. After leaving the bench he helped to create the Justice Speakers Institute where he is now a partner and chief finical officer. He has been honored by the Foundation for the Improvement of Justice with the Paul H. Chapman medal, for significant contributions to the American Criminal Justice System and by the American Judges Association for significant contributions to judicial education. Judge MacKenzie served as the President of the American Judges Association from 2014 to 2015. From 2008 to 2010 Judge MacKenzie was the American Bar Association/National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Judicial Fellow. He received his Juris Doctorate from Wayne State University Law School in 1974. Judge MacKenzie has written and lectured throughout the world on issues including procedural fairness, veterans treatment courts, domestic violence, drug treatment courts, alcohol/drug testing, and high visibility cases. Among other entities he has presented for American University, the National Judicial College, the National Association of Drug Court Professionals, the American Judges Association, the American Bar Association, the National Traffic Safety Administration, and the National Association of Court Managers. He is the co-editor of the book, “Michigan Criminal Procedure”. He is also the author of the American Judges Association’s position paper entitled “Procedural Fairness: The Key to Drug Treatment Courts”. His blog and podcast can be found at http://justicespeakersinstitute.com/. Judge MacKenzie is married to Karen MacKenzie. He has three children; Kate, David and Breanna and five grandsons, Daniel, Raymond, Henry, Zachary and Lucas.
The Education and Curriculum Committee is hard at work on a number of initiatives designed to enhance the professional lives of judicial educators. The fifteen-member committee, co-chaired by Judith Anderson of Washington and Anthony Simones of Missouri, made the decision to split into three subcommittees in order to effectively achieve the goals of the group.
The first goal is to propose curriculum-based sessions for the 2017 NASJE Conference. The subcommittee that took on this task included Kelly Tait, Janice Calvi-Ruimerman, Marie Anders, Stephanie Hemmert, Dana Bartocci, Judith Anderson and Anthony Simones. After reviewing the sessions offered at recent conferences, a number of needs were identified. One session will examine why the curriculum designs were created and how they can be used by judicial educators to enhance the quality of their work. A second session will address the always-relevant topic of diversity issues. A third session will explore success in writing grant applications. Finally, a much-needed session will deal with the Human Resources Curriculum Design. Workgroups are currently creating proposals for these sessions to be submitted to the Conference Committee.
Anthony Simones
A second goal is to continue what has come to be known as the “Article Club.” Created last year, it was inspired by the success of book clubs throughout the nation. However, the idea of asking busy judicial educators to find the extra time to read a book to prepare for a single meeting struck the committee as unrealistic. On the other hand, simply asking them to read an article in preparation for a session was much more realistic. Thus, the initial idea of a “book club” became a much more practical “article club.” Another modification of the status quo involved the “webinar” format. The visual-heavy focus of webinars seemed ill-suited to what the committee sought to accomplish with these sessions: the simple sharing of ideas. It was decided that a conference-call format would be much more conducive to achieving this objective. Thus, the “callinar” was born. The two sessions were well-received last year and two more callinars will be offered in 2017. The subcommittee charged with offering the article club callinars includes Julie McDonald, Thea Whalen, Linda Dunbar, Judith Anderson and Anthony Simones.
A final goal is to identify and to lay the foundation for the creation of the next curriculum design: ethics. The subject of ethics is one that has permeated all of the existing curriculum designs. The committee concluded that rather than just occupy a small section of the various curriculum designs, this issue is one that justifies its own curriculum design. Jeff Schrade, Jesse Walker, Janice Calvi-Ruimerman, Ileen Gerstenberger, Stephen Feiler, Christine Christopherson, Judith Anderson and Anthony Simones comprise the subcommittee that will address this issue. The first step will be to develop a core curriculum on ethics. After this, the group will wrestle with a number of issues involved in the creation of the Ethics Curriculum Design, including the designation of an author, as well as the question of whether to continue the structural approach used in the past curriculum designs.
The agenda of the Education and Curriculum Committee has been characterized as ambitious. Given the importance of the issues this committee addresses, and the quality of the individuals who compose this group, it is difficult to imagine anything less than an ambitious agenda for this committee.
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.
Mark Goodner, Deputy Counsel and Director of Judicial Education, TMCEC Regan Metteauer, Program Attorney, TMCEC
Judicial Education in Texas works differently than in many other states. Instead of judicial education being a function of the Office of Court Administration (OCA) as it is elsewhere (usually called the AOC or Administrative Office of the Courts), judicial education is provided through multiple entities each providing training for a different segment of the judiciary. This judicial education is financed by a grant from the Court of Criminal Appeals (Texas’ highest court for criminal cases) out of funds appropriated by the Legislature to the Judicial and Court Personnel Training Fund. In Texas, judicial education is administered by the Court of Criminal Appeals, through grants from the Court to Judicial Education entities, such as the Texas Municipal Courts Education Center (TMCEC).
TMCEC was formed in 1984 by the Texas Municipal Courts Association (TMCA) to provide extensive, continuing professional education and training programs for municipal judges and court personnel. In the last fiscal year, TMCEC trained over 5,300 municipal judges, court administrators, clerks, juvenile case managers, prosecutors, bailiffs, and warrant officers. Other education providers such as the Texas Association of Counties, the Texas Justice Court Training Center, and the Texas Center for the Judiciary provide extensive education opportunities to their respective constituencies. Some specialized education is also funded through other grants from the Texas Department of Transportation.
Since 2008, TMCEC has received special funding from the Texas Department of Transportation to provide education on traffic safety, with a focus on impaired driving. The role of municipal judges in impaired driving cases, primarily as magistrates, is only part of a bigger picture. All levels of the judiciary have a role in an impaired driving case. Thus, the impaired driving symposium was born.
The Impaired Driving Symposium is a special conference hosted jointly by the Texas Association of Counties, the Texas Center for the Judiciary, the Texas Justice Court Training Center, and TMCEC. This seminar gives Texas judges the opportunity to converse and network with judges from other levels of the judiciary with the goal of streamlining impaired driving cases from arrest to disposition. Course topics for the 2016 Impaired Driving Symposium included probable cause, blood warrants case law, electronic search warrants, compliance issues, case studies, drugged driving, setting bond conditions, occupational driver’s licenses, and minors under the influence. Over 140 Texas judges attended the 2016 Impaired Driving Symposium. The third annual symposium is scheduled for 2017. The Impaired Driving Symposium has proven to be a successful new model of education only possible through the combined efforts and support of all of the judicial education entities.
Mark Goodner is the Deputy Counsel and Director of Judicial Education for the Texas Municipal Courts Education Center (TMCEC). Annually, Mark plans, develops, and oversees ten Regional Judges Seminars per year each offering 16 hours of judicial education along with two 32-hour New Judges Seminars. In addition to his work at TMCEC, Mark serves as the Presiding Judge for the City of Woodcreek and as an Associate Judge for the cities of Bee Cave and Leander. Mark is a Certified Court Manager, having completed the Court Management Program of the Institute for Court Management in August 2016. Mr. Goodner graduated from the University of Texas School of Law with a juris doctorate and certification in the Graduate Portfolio Program in Dispute Resolution in May of 2007.
A couple of times a year, the training division at the Arizona Superior Court in Tucson, AZ, sponsors a book club for continuing education credit, led by NASJE member Nancy Smith. In May of 2016, Club Read members met to discuss the book Crossing the Yard, by Professor Richard Shelton (2007, University of Arizona Press). If ever there was a book perfect for law and literature, for both court staff and for judicial officers, this profoundly compelling memoir about prisons is it.
It is difficult to discuss prison conditions with just about anyone. Some are convinced that crime deserves prison, the more time the better. Others are appalled by statistics that reveal the huge number of prisoners in America. Politicians talk about being tough on crime, parents talk about spending more on education instead of on prisons. Private prisons seem to be having a heyday. Recently, much has been made of the number of minorities in American prisons, and the long sentences they serve compared to Whites. We are scared by recidivism rates, yet unwilling, it seems, to spend scarce resources on programs to prevent it. As court personnel, exposed daily to crimes against society, it is easy to become jaded about prison and prisoners.
Few of us, however, have actually spent any real time in prisons. Perhaps we have had a tour, or maybe even visited a relative or friend there. In reality, we don’t understand what it is like to be in prison.
Unlike most of us, author Richard Shelton has spent many hours and days trying to help prisoners. In fact, he has spent more than 30 years leading creative writing workshops in Arizona’s prisons. Week in and week out he travels to remote and horrifying locations, working tirelessly to develop real writers out of inmates willing to learn. Along the way, he learned that prisoners are people, and many of them are enormously talented people who made bad mistakes in their lives and landed in prison.
Professor (emeritus) of Creative Writing at the University of Arizona in Tucson, Shelton wrote Crossing the Yard, a memoir of his experiences in Arizona prisons and full of stories that will inspire and disgust readers, with the goal of enlightening people to what really goes on inside prisons. He began trekking to the state prison in Florence, AZ after receiving a letter from a particularly infamous prisoner who asked Shelton to critique his writing. While many of Shelton’s adventures are downright scary, others are full of humor and hopefulness. The prisoners in Shelton’s workshops taught him many lessons, especially to be patient, forgiving and kind.
Shelton writes “Oh, these men in orange. I’ve learned more from them than I ever taught them, and it’s been good stuff…They have taught me to be patient; never to whine no matter what; to expect the worst and be happy if I get anything else; to be loyal, to be forgiving, to be kind. They have taught me that we are all law breakers and we are all victims of crime. They have taught me that growing old is no disgrace, but that a youth, wasted in prison, is a disaster.” (p. 227) Several of Shelton’s inmate students became published authors, like Jimmy Santiago Baca and Ken Lamberton, and more than a few became his friends. More often than not, workshop members found a reason for living and for staying out of trouble once released.
What really angers Shelton is the inhumane way prisoners are treated: “I want to put my head down on the table in front of me and weep with a pain that will not be comforted and a rage I cannot express.” (p. 232) He finds prison administrators inept and uncaring; prison policies arbitrary, ineffective, and cruel; the conditions horrible and inhumane; and the bureaucracy impossible. He rages that society simply throws so many people away, when after spending time with them Shelton finds that they are human beings deserving of forgiveness. He is not so naïve to believe that all prisoners are redeemable, but he believes that many are and all should at least be treated with dignity and respect while imprisoned.
Crossing the Yard provoked much soul searching when we discussed it in the Superior Court book club. Members of the group were overall pretty appalled at what they read, and came away with altered perspectives about those they see put away every day in their jobs. The group was surprised at the prevalence of drugs and racism in the prisons, but not really at the number of mentally ill serving time. Shelton’s stories and examples convinced group members that prisoners deserve a second chance to be contributing members of society. Prison does not have to be a place that destroys a person’s humanity, and many prisoners can be redeemed given the chance and the resources. Professor Shelton’s workshops provided just such a resource to its members.
Most of all, Shelton’s book taught group members what prison is really like for most prisoners. The picture is not pretty.
Professor Shelton writes very well and is a wonderful storyteller. The grim stories are interspersed with heartwarming stories of success and plenty of good humor. He also provides a reading list, and those who take the list and read the writing of workshop participants will be amazed at the powerful poetry, prose and art that leap from the pages of their work.
With sentencing reform and prison reform currently on the agenda in many states and at the federal level, a book like Crossing the Yard can serve to illuminate why such reforms are vital. As judicial branch educators, we are always on the lookout for essential learning resources to guide our work. Crossing the Yard by Richard Shelton is one such resource.
NAJSE members can access the discussion questions created for the Book Club discussion in Tucson, as well as a link to a PBS video interview of Professor Shelton on the Members Area of this website.
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.
When I began working at the Federal Judicial center ten years ago, I first heard of a learning conference concept called “open space.” You may have heard of it or even used it. It seemed so odd to me! Basically, learners come together with a predetermined, overarching topic for a specific amount of time with no specific agenda topics predefined at all. Some people call this an “unconference” or “open conference.”
Until I first saw the open space concept in practice, I was confused and skeptical. Hundreds of people flying in from around the country for about two and a half days with absolutely NO initial agenda other than start and end times?! What? Then I saw the concept in action. I experienced how scores of agenda topics can be developed in real-time, how hundreds of people (I experienced group sizes from about 25 up to 650!) were enthusiastically engaged throughout the whole program, and how participants walked away with tangible benefits they immediately applied. I began facilitating individual sessions, and then for years I also facilitated participants creating the agenda. I find the process to be a complex, yet simple, educational work of art. It almost seems magical. I would describe it as such if I didn’t know that behind the seeming magic a number of things are actually put into place beforehand and specific concepts are followed during the event to ensure its success.
For this write-up, I would like to share with you open space “ground rules,” some optimal conditions I’ve found to help it run smoothly and effectively, and a brief history behind it.
Ground Rules
I’ll focus on four ground rules or concepts:
The “Law of Two Feet”
“Whoever Comes is the Right People”
“Whatever Happens is the Only Thing That Could Happen,” and
“When It’s Over, It’s Over”
Some people use slightly different phrases for the rules as you may find them slightly awkward and/or, let’s be honest, wacky sounding.
“Law of Two Feet.” After the learners come together to build the agenda (more on this to follow), everyone receives a copy of it – showing which topics were scheduled where and when – and learners go to the topic session that interests them the most. Folks with something to give as well as something to gain are encouraged to attend a particular topic of interest to them. The idea of the law of two feet is that when a person feels he or she has nothing more to add or gain from the conversation, he or she moves on to another conversation topic. This may happen multiple times during sessions. The learner is in control. Nobody is offended when someone comes into a conversation later and facilitators do a great job of quickly recapping the highlights of the conversation for these latecomers. It is a constant, fluid process.
“Whoever Comes is the Right People.” Whoever shows up to the individual session is meant to be there. Sometimes people lament over who is not present, but it doesn’t matter. Whoever did come to the session by definition has a vested interest in the discussion and there is information to be shared and discussed.
“Whatever Happens is the Only Thing That Could Happen.” I have been in a session where after about five minutes the participants felt that they answered their questions and that no more needed to be said so everyone moved on to another session. It works! They solved their problems and got a chance to gain even more information from another session. Everyone wins. This concept overall is meant to focus participants on the here and now and not worry about what could’ve and should’ve been.
“When It’s Over, It’s Over.” Similar to the previous rule, when the discussion has run its course, it is time to move on! There is no need to belabor anything and waste time. People take responsibility for their own learning.
Optimal Conditions
Participants ‘self-select’ their way into open space discussions, both to the overall learning and to the individual sessions. Once they are there, a critical way to help the learning process is to make people feel welcome and a part of the process and discussions. This applies during the agenda building, by encouraging people to contribute topics they are passionate about, and it also applies during the individual discussions with facilitators making everyone feel welcome and actively involved.
During the agenda building process, when people nominate a topic, I have found it helpful to ask them to write it down on a fairly large piece of paper with a fat marker and hold it up to the group while announcing it. The person then visibly cements their commitment and passion for the topic and the group has the opportunity to meet the person making the suggestion. Having the topic written down also assists the person who is creating the agenda on the side, filling slots with topics. It may go without saying, but I’ve found it is also helpful to remind people that we strongly encourage the topic nominator to go to the discussion and to be there at least at the beginning.
Once the topics are assigned to location and time slots it is very helpful to publish an electronic version of the agenda to which everyone has immediate access. A paper agenda is also possible, but it means there is a little more downtime with printing and copying before the first session can begin.
Though not critical, I’ve found assigning facilitators to each session enhances the learning. Facilitators play a major part in moving the discussion along, focusing on encouraging a variety of participants to speak, making each person feel involved in the discussion, quickly recapping major discussion points as new participants join in, and writing major points or bits of learning information (such as a contact name/number) on a flip chart. I have run “Facilitator Refresh” sessions prior to the open space to review basic facilitation concepts, emphasizing specific points such as not being a subject matter expert and highlighting open space concepts such as implications of the Law of Two Feet. With Facilitator Refresh sessions, I like to use the analogy of an orchestra conductor who is inviting music (discussion) to be played from all of the different instruments (participants) in the orchestra (room), keeping the music going until it’s over.
Having participants sit in a “U” or semi-circle during the individual sessions (and during the agenda creation, if feasible) works best for sharing knowledge and ideas.
It is helpful to have a note taker assigned to each session to write down key points from the discussion. These can be shared with participants later, and even with people who did not attend the open space. Another aspect that facilitators can help out with is asking and reminding participants to say their name/location each time they speak. This helps the note taker as well as helping the people in the room get to know one another.
For a multi-day open space conference, I’ve found that reconvening all the participants to regroup and have additional agenda building sessions works well so that the group builds the agenda in segments. As open space progresses participants’ passions widen, curiosities spark, and people have additional questions and think of additional topics. Keep in mind that open space sessions don’t have to be multi-day events. I’ve led open space sessions that last an afternoon, or even just a few hours.
History
I cannot talk about open space without giving kudos to Harrison Owen, who first discovered the concept. (He rejects having “invented” it.) Before Owen designed open space, he described how he used to organize and run conferences, and people would comment that the most valuable time they had and where they would gain the most, was from the discussions they had with other participants at a break, over coffee. Sound familiar to anyone? So he set out to design a conference that was all coffee break, so to speak. Brilliant!
Here’s a great quote by him.
Open Space runs on two fundamentals: passion and responsibility. Passion engages the people in the room. Responsibility ensures things get done. A focusing theme or question provides the framework for the event. The art of the question lies in saying just enough to evoke attention, while leaving sufficient open space for the imagination to run wild. —Harrison Owen
I also would be remiss if I didn’t give deep hat tips to my former boss, Judy Roberts, and colleague, Bob Fagan, who introduced me to open space and modeled the key aspects that make it work.
Please see below for related additional reading on open space. If you have any questions or comments, please contact me at shemmert@fjc.gov.
Stephanie Hemmert, a Senior Judicial Education Attorney, works with the Federal Judicial Center, a judicial branch agency whose primary mission is education and research for the federal courts. Prior to law school, Stephanie worked in the insurance industry in underwriting and training capacities. All views expressed are her own.
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 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.
Judge Brian MacKenzie is an award winning judicial educator who retired from the bench after almost twenty-seven years of service. After leaving the bench he helped to create the Justice Speakers Institute where he is now a partner and chief finical officer. He has been honored by the Foundation for the Improvement of Justice with the Paul H. Chapman medal, for significant contributions to the American Criminal Justice System and by the American Judges Association for significant contributions to judicial education. Judge MacKenzie served as the President of the American Judges Association from 2014 to 2015. From 2008 to 2010 Judge MacKenzie was the American Bar Association/National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Judicial Fellow. He received his Juris Doctorate from Wayne State University Law School in 1974. Judge MacKenzie has written and lectured throughout the world on issues including procedural fairness, veterans treatment courts, domestic violence, drug treatment courts, alcohol/drug testing, and high visibility cases. Among other entities he has presented for American University, the National Judicial College, the National Association of Drug Court Professionals, the American Judges Association, the American Bar Association, the National Traffic Safety Administration, and the National Association of Court Managers. He is the co-editor of the book, “Michigan Criminal Procedure”. He is also the author of the American Judges Association’s position paper entitled “Procedural Fairness: The Key to Drug Treatment Courts”. His blog and podcast can be found at 
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 
Stephanie Hemmert, a Senior Judicial Education Attorney, works with the Federal Judicial Center, a judicial branch agency whose primary mission is education and research for the federal courts. Prior to law school, Stephanie worked in the insurance industry in underwriting and training capacities. All views expressed are her own.
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.