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.
By Jeff Schrade, Director of Education Services, Arizona Administrative Office of the Courts
NOTE: Jeff Schrade will lead a session on this topic at NASJE’s annual conference in October in Seattle, where he’ll be available to answer your questions and discuss Arizona’s process.
Judicial educators create opportunities for transformative education that strengthens the administration of justice. One of the most important and valuable transformations we can facilitate is that from new hire to supervisor, manager, executive and beyond. It is just this sort of defined career pathway that attracts bright and justice-oriented individuals to a career in the courts. We also know that the courts sit on the edge of a demographic cliff, with Baby Boomers retiring in record numbers for at least the next decade. To face this challenge, we must recruit justice-minded individuals and keep them engaged in their work, while also developing professional competencies that prepare them for increasing responsibility and leadership.
In addition to these immediate demographic challenges, change itself keeps changing, and the pace of change continues to accelerate. We see this most visibly with rapidly-changing computer technology, but also with changing expectations from our communities as new drugs, crime trends, and treatment options emerge. Leaders in the judicial branch must be adaptable and pilot courts through a dynamic environment. In short, we need smart, creative, passionate, capable and well-prepared leaders who are committed to the profession of court management.
So how do we get there? We’re presented with at least two different approaches: (1) we recruit from outside of the courts or (2) we develop leaders from within. While colleges of public administration and law can produce some court employees, there are too few formalized court management programs that teach the knowledge and skills necessary to effectively administer a court. Often even highly-qualified candidates from outside of the courts need significant training and development – for example on managing caseflow. These factors taken together convince me that our state courts will have to be in the business of developing leaders for the foreseeable future.
Leaders of the Arizona Judicial Branch also considered this conclusion over a decade ago along with other environmental challenges specific to Arizona:
Geography – Arizona is the 6th largest geographic state in the U.S. with over 60,000 miles of highway connecting a diverse mix of urban, rural, tribal and border communities.
State court structure – A decentralized court system with local hiring authorities creates needs that differ from court to court.
Competition from other sectors – An expanding job market in Arizona creates intense competition for new employees.
In 2006, Chief Justice of the Arizona Supreme Court Ruth McGregor established the Court Leadership Institute of Arizona to “develop meaningful, comprehensive management and leadership programs for current and future court leaders to use in advancing the administration of justice in Arizona” (AO 2006-69). Soon after, a committee of court administrators, judges, probation leaders and academics appointed by the Chief Justice began developing this leadership training program.
The committee initiated an intensive multi-year curriculum development project. Beginning with a fairly expansive needs assessment, the committee focused on developing a tiered-competency model with the first tier serving new supervisors, the second serving seasoned managers, and higher tiers serving those in executive management positions.
The committee focused a considerable amount of time identifying content areas and developing learning objectives for each tier, influenced by direct local input as well as by national models such as the National Association for Court Management (NACM) core competencies. It was only after the content areas and learning objectives were well-defined that the committee shifted focus to developing curriculum to meet the learning objectives. Fortunately the Institute for Court Management (ICM) had an existing national curriculum that met many of the learning objectives developed by the committee.
Arizona had been offering court management certification training programs locally since 1998 through a partnership with ICM. However, the existing arrangement couldn’t scale to impact the potential audience identified in Arizona courts – there are approximately 10,000 employees and judges in Arizona’s courts including 2,500 probation officers and support personnel. With many other states facing similar challenges, ICM formed a 7-state consortium to revamp its curriculum and create a model that would deliver national certification courses locally (to scale) in participating states.
As curriculum was developed for the ICM consortium, the Arizona Court Leadership Institute committee aligned the six manager-level ICM courses and six executive-level ICM courses to content areas and learning objectives in each tier of the Arizona program. However, the ICM courses did not cover all of the areas identified by the committee. The Education Services Division of the Arizona AOC developed new curriculum to meet these learning objectives:
Manager – 3 ½ days covering diversity, alternative dispute resolution, specialty courts, governance, inherent powers, civil case process, jury management, records management, probation management, court management functions, political activity and the role of courts in Arizona.
Executive – 1 day covering judicial independence and interdependencies, facilities management, and security and emergency management.
Additionally, the ICM curriculum did not cover general management and supervision skills necessary for new supervisors entering the first tier of the program. Realizing the crucial need for a first-tier leadership curriculum that prepares promising employees for advancement into management, the committee set out to develop a new stand-alone curriculum for new supervisors.
However, the committee soon realized that the quantity of courses needed for the entry-level supervisor tier was beyond the capacity of the Arizona AOC to produce. Coupled with the practical concern that most first-tier supervisors should not be away from their job assignments for extended amounts of time, this lead the committee to adopt a blended model with self-paced online courses for key content, and live webinars and in-person classes to practice, discuss and further develop supervisory skills.
The committee selected a mix of existing computer-based trainings produced by the AOC and off-the-shelf entry-level supervision courses from SkillSoft, a large private national learning provider. Participants take the self-paced online classes and complete worksheets that are submitted, along with a transcript of class attendance, to certify completion of the Arizona Court Supervisor program. Self-paced online classes cover conflict resolution, problem solving and decision making, coaching and employee relations, effective communications and meetings, team building and employee motivation, setting priorities, change management, purposes and responsibilities of courts, visioning and strategic planning, legal information vs. legal advice, and security/emergency preparedness.
The Supervisor program also uses live webinars and in-person classes to address complex topics, and to develop essential supervisor skills. Live webinars include transition to the role of supervisor and supervisory ethics. Four in-person classes lasting one or two days cover human resources management, supervisor’s role in case management, essential components of probation supervision, leadership, role of courts, records management, public education, media, policy, organization, workflow processes and accountability.
Results
Although the committee discussed sending individuals through the program as a strict cohort, participants can complete courses in any order within a 7-year time span (required by ICM). Nevertheless, most participants complete the program together, forming a connection with one another that contributes to the effectiveness of the program. The Supreme Court hosts graduation celebrations for each tier that are usually well-attended by the families and professional colleagues of program graduates.
Recently many local courts have started to include this program’s certifications as “preferred” in recruitments. We believe this provides great value to graduates of the program while at the same time strengthening the candidate pool for local court recruitment.
The Arizona Court Supervisor (ACS) program courses were offered starting in 2012, and the first class of 42 “Arizona Court Supervisors” graduated in March 2014. Today, the ACS program has 126 active participants.
The Arizona Court Manager (ACM) program courses were offered starting in 2008, and the first class of 48 “Arizona Court Managers” graduated in May 2010. Today, the ACM program has 75 active participants and a total of 169 court leaders have graduated from the program.
The Arizona Court Executive (ACE) program courses were offered starting in 2011, and the first class of 29 “Arizona Court Executives” graduated in November 2013. Today, the ACE program has 34 active participants and a total of 33 graduates.
The leadership program has also produced a remarkable increase in ICM Fellows from Arizona. The 2014 ICM Fellows class had 11 individuals from Arizona out of a total class of 19. This was followed by 3 Arizonans in the 2015 ICM Fellows class and 4 participating in the ICM 2016 Fellows class.
Leadership Pipeline
It is no surprise that the tiered design of the Arizona Court Leadership Institute is producing so many new ICM Fellows. In fact, retention and progression have emerged as tangible benefits of this model. As the figure below illustrates, the model provides a clear path for professional development from hire to achieving the highest professional certification as an ICM Fellow.
High-potential employees complete the Arizona Court Supervisor program in 18-36 months while making the transition from “bud to boss” and assuming supervisory duties. Successful supervisors can then enter into the Arizona Court Manager program – another 18-36 months of study. Experienced managers then continue to 18-48 months of the Arizona Court Executive program, and then on to the 2-year ICM fellows program. This path can take between 6 and 14 years, potentially spanning a significant part of one’s career.
Each program requires an application to be completed by the participant, their direct supervisor and their court’s chief administrative officer. This states an explicit commitment from the participant, their supervisor, and their court leadership to complete the program. Although not all participants in any given tier will advance to the next, the program taken together provides a powerful incentive for individuals to stay in the courts, and to continue developing as a leader within the profession.
The NASJE Communications Committee will endeavor to periodically feature a spotlight on a NASJE member who has demonstrated tremendous efforts while “Navigating Judicial Education in Great Change.” The Committee members have voted to highlight NASJE member Diane Cowdrey (CA) who led the restructuring of the Center for Judiciary Education and Research (CJER) during the meltdown of the economy and the fiscal crisis for California’s judicial branch beginning in early 2008. Diane is the Director of CJER, in the Operations and Programs Division, Judicial Council of California.
Keegan: It is my understanding that reductions in personnel over the past several years have necessitated a restructuring of CJER. Examining what took place behind the reductions revealed that the restructuring efforts were calculated very carefully and included tremendous changes. I imagine it was challenging to ensure the budget reductions were structured to minimize the impact of the courts while maintaining access to high quality judicial education. Have the restructuring efforts met your expectations of creating efficiencies while maintaining high quality education? What other fine-tuning does the restructuring need? What advice do you have for other states that are considering restructuring of staff?
Cowdrey: I’ll begin with some background. California has undergone a huge amount of change within the judicial branch over the past five years. California’s judicial branch is the largest state judicial branch in the nation. It is governed by the Judicial Council of California, and includes 58 superior courts (trial courts), six courts of appeals and the Supreme Court. Trial courts are organized by county, with more than 500 courthouses statewide. There are more than 2,000 judicial officers, and approximately 19,000 employees who were responsible for processing the nearly 7.7 million case filings in fiscal year 2012-13.
The Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) was created by the Judicial Council in 1961 to provide administrative support to the Council and to the trial and appellate courts. CJER was created in 1973 by the Judicial Council and the California Judges Association to ensure stable funding and an effective structure for judicial education. An advisory committee to the Council, the CJER Governing Committee, is responsible for judicial branch education policy and strategic planning. Paul Li was hired as the first CJER Director, followed by Cathy Lowe and Karen Thorson. I took the Director position in early 2008, just prior to the meltdown of the economy, the resulting impact on state budgets, and beginning of the fiscal crisis for California’s judicial branch.
In January 2011, then-Governor Schwarzenegger appointed Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye as the new Chief Justice. In California, the Chief Justice presides over the Supreme Court as well as serving as the head of the policy making body, the Judicial Council. In March 2011, the new Chief Justice created the Strategic Evaluation Committee (SEC) to conduct an in-depth review of the AOC, with the intention of obtaining a fuller understanding of the organization, and creating transparency, accountability and efficiency. At that time, the AOC was facing severe criticism during the fiscal crisis. The Legislature reduced funding for the branch by 1.2 billion (25%) since fiscal year 2010-2011, necessitating the closure of courthouses and courtrooms, reduced hours, limited days of service, and reductions in staffing. Layoffs, furloughs, and unfilled vacancies occurred in the trial and appellate courts, as well as at the AOC.
The report of the SEC in May 2012 resulted in 124 recommendations for the operation of the AOC, with a particular focus on the reduction of staff and an increased emphasis on the core services provided to the courts. Restructuring within the AOC took on a greater urgency after the SEC report was released. The structure and leadership of the AOC underwent many changes. Between 2011 and 2014, there were five different administrative directors, and a large turnover in executive positions. The organizational structure changed dramatically, including the elimination of the Deputy Director position, and in July 2014, the Judicial Council changed the name of the agency. No longer the AOC, the organization was renamed the Judicial Council, to indicate clearly that we were the staff agency of the Judicial Council of California.
Within CJER, changes occurred, in part, due to the recommendations of the SEC Report. Since July 2011, the total number of employees working in CJER was 100. By January 2015, that number has dropped to 44, a reduction of nearly 60%. About one-half of the reduction is due to restructuring, wherein many employees and job functions were moved to a centralized department. Previously, CJER included staff responsible for printing and mail services, conference planning and registration services, audio-visual services, review of audio-visual infrastructure in new capital projects, and support of conference facilities. Most of these staff and functions are now located in a separate administrative unit. They continue to support CJER, but are not a part of our organization. The other one-half of the reduction in staff is due to layoffs, natural attrition, and the elimination of vacant positions. In addition to staffing reductions, CJER sustained significant budget reductions, including a nearly 60% reduction in funding for programs for the trial courts.
With that as a backdrop of what occurred during this period of tremendous change and reduction, it was important to identify and maintain priorities in order to manage to continue to provide judicial branch education during this period. Judicial educators want to be able to provide a wide range of programs and services to judges and court staff; however, when reducing staff and budgets, it is imperative to identify core functions and services. Before reductions were made, CJER staff and the CJER Governing Committee identified the priorities that needed to be maintained. For example, one priority for CJER is education for new judges. CJER has three separate programs for all new judges appointed or elected to judicial office: New Judge Orientation (one week program), the B.E. Witkin Judicial College (two-week program), and a Primary Assignment Orientation (one week). Judges are required by rule to take these programs within specific timeframes, and they are essential programs to orient new judges to their new role and responsibilities. Because these programs were considered as the highest priority, they were protected during many of the budget cuts, only making minor changes to reduce costs.
Another priority was quality. We never made cuts that would impact the quality of the programming or the services we provided. For instance, we have a planning process that uses staff and nine separate curriculum committees to determine the education to be delivered within a specific two-year period. This two-year education plan is based on available staffing and funding, and CJER conducts a resource analysis of our staff to make sure we have sufficient attorneys, educational specialists, conference coordinators and others to provide the amount of quality programming and resources desired by the curriculum committees. We carefully estimate what our staff can produce, so everyone has sufficient time and resources to maintain the quality of the work. CJER’s reputation is based on years of high quality judicial branch education, and we would rather reduce the number of programs and products than continue to provide that same number of programs and products, but at a lower level of quality.
My advice to other judicial educators considering restructuring is to make sure you have a set of priorities that you use in making decisions, and that set of priorities must be created in collaboration with stakeholders. Quality must be included; if you lose your reputation for providing excellent judicial education, it is difficult to regain. Judges and court staff will seek education from other sources, and/or your organization will become marginalized. Keep the quality and keep the faith that funding will become available in the future. If you continue to maintain quality programming, stakeholders will continue to value it, and, as resources improve in the future, to increase your funding.
Keegan: In response to budget reductions, I understand CJER moved its programs to an AOC facility instead of offering programs in an off-site venue and ramped up their delivery of online education products (broadcasts, videoconferencing, WebEx, short online education products, and filming the live face-to-face sessions) which in comparison to face-to-face trainings is a much lower-cost delivery method of education due to savings in the time and cost of travel. Has this been successful? How has it been received by your participants? What challenges have you faced, particularly in offering more online education products, and how did you overcome them?
Cowdrey: As all judicial educators know, live, face-to-face programs are the most expensive. While they are also some of the most effective types of education and appropriate especially for judges, who value the opportunity to interact with their colleagues, face-to-face programs are often the earliest target in budget reductions. The earliest reductions in programming were aimed at some of the large, face-to-face programs held in off-site venues, where judges from around the state came together to hear from expert faculty, and to share experiences and learn from one another. One of the major efficiencies CJER used was to increase distance education. Instead of bringing judges to a central location to hear from faculty, we brought faculty to our office where we could create a video presentation and post that video online for all judges to view. When it worked educationally, we produced video presentations, short online resources, and webinars instead of having live, face-to-face education. We developed in-house expertise in WebEx and trained staff and faculty on creating effective webinars. When appropriate, we created blended education which shortened the live (i.e., expensive) portion of a course and used WebEx (i.e., less expensive) to convey content that could be provided effectively using that delivery method. CJER expanded different models of delivering live programs, and increased regional programs (smaller, shorter courses held around the state) that did not generally require hotels or travel costs. We developed a course catalog that allowed presiding judges to request a course, with CJER paying travel faculty costs. That gave local courts the ability to hold courses at little or no cost, and was low cost for CJER. Staff time that was freed by reducing the large, face-to-face programs was now utilized with these additional delivery methods.
We also moved as many of our programs to on-site venues to reduce the high cost of holding programs at hotels. Because many courts were also in fiscal crisis, they did not generally complain about this change, since their courts were also implementing austerity measures. Our focus was to find ways to provide education at reduced costs, and we looked for approaches and delivery methods that could fulfill that goal.
Efficiencies were critical in being able to continue to provide education to the branch, and the biggest focus was the most efficient delivery method. However, I continued to emphasize effectiveness and quality, and decisions were made using all of these variables. When planning the two-year education plan, staff and curriculum committees refer to a chart that was developed to indicate which delivery methods are appropriate for achieving certain types of educational goals (attached). One year, when we had to severely reduce the cost of faculty development, we created an online newsletter with information, articles and tips for faculty, and instituted a series of short webinars for experienced judicial faculty. CJER staff was extremely innovative in trying to find ways to effectively deliver education and serve our many audiences at the least cost.
Because of the expanded use of other delivery methods, it was important to obtain feedback about the change. We added a question to our standard evaluation tool: “There are many ways to deliver education (e.g., live, program, webinar, broadcast). Were the methods used for this course effective? Why or why not?” Responses from this one question were collected systematically so we could gauge the feedback. As much as many judges and court staff appreciated the use of distance education, many were disappointed by the reductions in live programs. We also surveyed judges to ascertain their feedback about the various delivery methods used and specifically about distance education and the resources available to them online. Responses from the evaluation and feedback from the 2013 survey indicated that many judges were using the online toolkits and resources, but wanted more live programming. Although the financial situation in California does not yet allow us to provide that, CJER has collected data to demonstrate the continued need and I use it when addressing policy makers.
Input from stakeholders was very important. Decisions around budget reductions were always made in collaboration with the CJER Governing Committee, and by using relevant, available data. When reductions were made, that information was clearly communicated so judges and court executive officers could plan for the next year. Additionally, one of the recommendations arising from the SEC report, was to utilize a cost/benefit analysis for any program that was high cost, justifying why that particular program needed to be delivered using that high cost method. The CJER Governing Committee and the curriculum committees, with staff, complete these forms.
Keegan: What efforts are currently in progress (for example, reorganizing the education webpages)?
Cowdrey: One project that was put into high gear was the redesign of CJER’s web pages. Over the years, it had developed into a less-than-ideal format, organized by delivery method and not by how a user would want to access the information and resources. A redesign effort was languishing and with budget reductions and the increase in distance education, it was imperative to move the project along quickly, with input from users. The newly redesigned webpage, CJER Online, incorporated feedback from users and was organized into “toolkits.” The toolkits were primarily the assignment areas that judges and court staff worked such as criminal law, civil law, family, probate, as well as areas such as ethics, access and fairness, and leadership. All online products were categorized into the toolkits, with accordions that expanded and contracted for ease of use. CJER Online is also integrated with a program calendar and registration, so users can explore current programs and register for them, without having to leave the site. Response to the redesign has been enthusiastic and positive.
We are also exploring new ways to deliver education and resources in our mobile-oriented environment, such as podcasts and short screencasts that judges and court staff can use as needed. CJER continues to examine our business processes to ensure that we are being as efficient as possible while ensuring that our staff has what they need to develop quality programming and resources. Our new Administrative Director, Martin Hoshino, has been aboard for six months, and has brought a positive energy as well as a strongly needed sense of stability to the staff of the Judicial Council. He recognizes the important role that CJER plays in helping to ensure the fair and impartial administration of justice for all Californians.
Keegan: As part of your programmatic reductions and operation efficiencies, can you tell me about the effectiveness of reducing the number of evaluations for each program and the use of online evaluations? Did this change effect the value of feedback you received? What challenges did you face and how did you overcome them?
Cowdrey: One efficiency that didn’t work as well as we had hoped was to use online evaluation forms. We implemented this for a couple years, but changed back to the paper forms because the decrease in completion was very compelling. Again, quality was the key factor. Not having the data from evaluations was a problem and if going back to the paper version was going to achieve a higher completion rate, then that was the right direction to take, even if it is the “low tech” and less efficient method.
Keegan: Is there anything else you would like to add that might be helpful to other judicial educators in states that are undergoing a restructuring or that are in a position to consider restructuring?
Cowdrey: My advice:
As the director, I tried to maintain a positive attitude about change with staff, and would talk about how we needed to be “fluid” in the changing environment. If there was a significant issue, I’d call a short staff meeting to update people.
In the restructuring, at times, people would be asked to do something new, or to work in an area that was unfamiliar to them. We looked at these situations as a positive, as a way to allow staff to stretch and try something new. Most were positive about the change, and as much as was possible, we worked with them to go in directions they were interested in.
In the midst of change, it is important to have some kind of practice that grounds you. My meditation practice does that for me. Others have a regular exercise practice. It is critical to have good self-care during periods of change and stress.
Good leaders are always looking at ways to improve their work and their organizations; however, it’s important to know when to stop improving and give people time to rest, recover, and integrate the change. Just like in planning education, timing and pacing are important in the change process.
Supplemental Materials
Education Delivery Options and Instructional Activities Matrix – PDF
We are excited to announce the completion of NASJE’s newest curriculum design!
The history of this effort began when NASJE undertook, with support from State Justice Institute (SJI), the task of developing a comprehensive set of curriculum designs to advance the profession of judicial branch education based on core competency areas.
Soon after the project got underway it became apparent that not all topics would or could be covered—namely fairness, diversity, and access— based on the original core competency areas that had been identified.
Upon completion of the first round of designs, the Diversity Committee (now Diversity, Fairness, and Access Committee) recommended to the NASJE Board that it undertake the development of a new design to address diversity, fairness, and access. A recommendation was approved by the Board and the Diversity, Fairness, and Access (DFA) Curriculum Workgroup was formed to develop the design.
Early on the Workgroup decided to focus on a design for “Entry Level” and not the “Experienced Level.” The decision to create an entry level design was practical. Since knowledge of diversity-related topics varies greatly among the membership, we thought much would be gained by approaching the design at a level where most in the profession likely fell. The design is not intended to make judicial educators subject matter experts on race, bias, stereotypes and diversity, but help them to understand the importance of these areas/topics to the profession and delivery of education programs.
NASJE’s Curriculum Committee (now the Education and Curriculum Committee) put in many hours to see this curriculum design realized. Check out this excellent resource for judicial branch educators!
A hard copy of the DFA curriculum design will be sent to NASJE members in the Spring.
Finally, the DFA Committee looks forward to formally presenting this new and exciting curriculum design to the membership in October during the Annual Meeting in Seattle.
by Jennifer Juhler, Director of Judicial Branch Education, Iowa
Court employees must provide good customer service, especially in light of the link between funding and how citizens feel about their courts. Good customer service translates into better overall feelings about the courts, and better overall feelings can translate into adequate funding.
The courts have tough customer groups who typically are in the midst of extremely stressful situations, making the job of excellent customer service even more challenging. Excellent customer service requires the ability to discern and meet the physical and emotional needs of a customer while maintaining an appropriate role in one’s job. It is a dance between understanding other people and understanding oneself; working within the rules while maintaining flexibility; seeing the good in other people when the “good” is hard to see.
This is a tall order, to dance easily among these competing needs. How can we accomplish excellent customer service in the courts? Some in the private sector have abandoned training and now fill customer service positions based upon the results of personality assessments and interviews. The theory is that teaching customer service is not possible; a person either has it or he or she doesn’t. Like all absolute statements, this is partly true, but only partly.
In this article, I make the case that education can play a role in creating exceptional customer service and focus, but only through a developmental lens combined with continued reflection, learning and action. For the sake of simplicity, I assume that the organization in question embraces a customer focus and that managers will readily play an integral role in both establishing customer focus within their work group and supporting the learning of employees.
Intentional Use of the Kolb Learning Cycle Because exceptional customer focus is a journey, not an event, educators must consider the journey and design learning to address both the personal level and the work group level. The Kolb learning cycle provides an easy and effective model to teach learners.
An example of Kolb applied to the individual level would be a quick in-class exercise such as the following:
Think of a customer service situation. (concrete)
What did you think, feel and experience during the situation? (reflection)
What could explain the situation on the part of the customer and in terms of your reaction? (theory)
How could you change what you did to improve the outcome for the customer? (action)
Management plays a role to further support this learning for individuals. For example, a manager could post the questions above in strategic yet inconspicuous locations throughout the office so the questions are seen by employees every day. To reinforce the culture and to leverage learning, this exercise could be incorporated into an ongoing activity for employees who could take 5-10 minutes during the day to consider a recent customer service situation. Employees new to customer service would complete the assignment every day; those with more experience would complete it once per week.
Learning could then be strengthened on the group level through periodic staff meetings to discuss some of the more challenging situations that have been encountered and to reconsider other options for improving the outcome. The learning could then branch from work group to work group by employing an online forum where groups could pose some of their more challenging situations for others to consider. Now the learning is spreading throughout the organization.
The Developmental Side of Customer Service The Kolb model above provides the “technical” side of the training. However, the more challenging piece of mastering customer service is the adaptive or developmental side – the increasing ability to understand others; the ability identify one’s emotions and to manage those emotions effectively.
Findings from brain research indicate that the brain does not finish developing until a person is a young adult, somewhere between 24 and 30. Key learning through early adulthood includes both the ability to identify personal emotional states as well as the ability to take on the perspective of another person. Clearly, understanding one’s own reactions and accurately assessing the needs of another person are essential skills in order to deliver exceptional customer service. Working with a customer service mindset will help to develop the brain of young adults to be predisposed to delivering exceptional customer service, because we know that brain development follows a “use it or lose it” trajectory. As a result, people who begin working in customer service during adolescence and young adulthood will more likely develop a brain pattern that supports exceptional customer service. Ironically, they may not be able to deliver exceptional customer service, at least initially. Developmentally, this age group does not yet possess the refined skills to see the complexity of life and think in novel ways that might benefit the customer. To address the developmental component of exceptional customer service, we turn to the work of Robert Keegan.
When reviewing Keegan’s work, we find the people most likely to deliver exceptional customer service would fall at the level of the “self-authoring mind” or level 4. Yet, Keegan’s research indicates that the majority of individuals are at a developmental stage below level 4. In fact, 58% of college-educated professionals are not yet at the self-authoring mind. The logical conclusion is that most of our employees do not yet operate using a self-authoring mind.
Keegan’s developmental levels describe abilities related to increasing mental complexity. At level 3, or the “socialized mind,” individuals are rule-bound based upon the rules of their chosen group, whether a family group or a group adopted during adolescence or young adulthood. If managers are successful in having level 3 employees identify with their work group, the established rules of the group would tend to prevail. Using the model laid out so far, we have rules about learning by using the Kolb cycle. Rules are a good start for our level 3 employees. However, exceptional customer service will be delivered by those employees who have reached level 4 or the self-authoring mind. How do we help people to move from level 3 to level 4?
Keegan is clear that a level 4 person describing how to think about customer service to a level 3 person will have as much impact as speaking to the level 3 person in an unknown foreign language. Instead of explaining or describing the level 4 perspective, the Judicial Educator must start squarely in level 3 and build a bridge over to level 4.
Starting with level 3, we create rules because rules work well for the level 3 mind; however, the rules will be directed at level 4 competencies. For a person firmly in the middle of level 3, understanding and following these rules will be a frustrating exercise to say the least. However, continued appreciation for a person following the rules independent of outcome is key. You will notice that one of our rules is to keep trying, or rather, keep learning.
Consider these rules for delivering customer service:
It starts with you . . .
Rule #1: IMAGINE — Imagine how you would feel if you were the person at the counter? What would help? Rule #2: STAY PRESENT — You must try not to lose your temper or shut down. If you do, you must step back and get someone else to help. If no one else is around, you need to apologize, take a break, breathe, and then try again. Rule #3: KEEP TRYING — Your goal is to continue to learn so that it is harder for you to lose your temper or shut down. It moves to the other person . . . Rule #4: EVERY PERSON IS PARTLY RIGHT BUT ONLY PARTLY — If you can’t understand why the other person is reacting differently from what you expected, don’t assume that person is wrong. Take a deep breath and ask the customer, “What could I do that you think would help this situation?” Rule #5: TALK IT OUT WITH SOMEONE ELSE — Every time you do not understand another person and/or they “push your buttons” you should debrief with someone in the office who is successful with most people. Keep the situation in mind as a useful one for further learning.
You can imagine these “rules” that form the bridge as part of the Kolb model, #3 above, “What could explain the situation on the part of the customer and in terms of your reaction?” Now we have a bridge embedded in an on-going learning situation. At this point, the Judicial Educator, with the assistance of mid-level managers, has created a bridge that promises rich learning. Even better, this developmental learning will increase mental complexity and the complexity will spill over into other areas of thinking, enriching the employee’s life and elevating the workplace.
To effectively serve court users is a difficult task and one that could provide a lifetime of educational opportunities. For the journey, stress on-going learning and create rules that build the bridge. Finally, continue to challenge yourself to be part of the developmental journey.
By David Gordon, Academic Coordinator, Judicial Education Unit, Nevada Supreme Court
Employee turnover can produce both positive change and increased challenge. Among the positive changes are fresh vision, a renewal of enthusiasm, and a chance to leave behind past issues that live on for no other reason than the memories of those involved. Challenges may include a loss of human capital in the form of skills, training and knowledge, as well as a loss of trust and working relationships with colleagues and clients.
The impact of turnover within a judicial education organization may be amplified by the small size of a judicial education staff, or the scarcity of qualified judicial educators. First, this article will consider the role played by the organization’s size.
Judicial education organizations vary widely among the different state court systems. A judicial education unit with four staff members will be impacted to its core when two employees leave. An education services division with 25 staff members will be more easily able to spread the work among remaining staff. Jeff Schrade, Director of the Education Services Unit in Arizona relies on cross-training to exercise flexibility when dealing with staff turnover. Nevada’s four-person Judicial Education Unit is necessarily cross-trained in order to deal with things as routine as the occasional sick day. Other judicial educators have stated that in a large organization, the value of cross-training can be diluted by an emphasis on specialization.
Experienced judicial educators are a rare commodity, and it is rare that a fully trained and experienced judicial educator joins a judicial education organization. Judges indicate that the characteristics they seem to value most in judicial educators are confidence and trust: confidence that the educator will pursue the best faculty for a topic, and trust that judicial education conferences provide an environment in which judges feel free to speak openly and honestly. One judge described turnover in a judicial education organization as a delicate proposition because the judges enjoy personal relationships with the judicial education staff, and yet expect the utmost in professionalism. Judges do value consistency and institutional knowledge in judicial educators.
One judge stated that judges don’t like turnover in judicial education organizations because the confidence and trust must be earned; another stated that turnover can create opportunities for recruitment of more qualified candidates who can assist in furthering more modern judicial education approaches and objectives. Still another judge said that he is more likely to agree to serve as faculty when asked by a staffer whom he believes has an in-depth knowledge of the value of his contribution.
All judicial educators must exhibit competence in adult learning theory, knowledge of the issues relevant to the judiciary of their state, and sensitivity to the political realities that permeate the life of a judge. Questions remain. Is there more value to having educators with experience as attorneys? Or is the best educator steeped in adult learning theory? There is no question that educators can only benefit from time spent observing court operations. As one judge told me, educators who observe court operations would be in a better position to tailor curricula to everyday practical situations, and court relationships could broaden the judicial faculty pool. Another judge said he believes the best instructors are often other judges. As judicial educators work with faculty judges, a shared vocabulary and a recognition of common problems faced in court can only enhance curriculum development.
Turnover within a judicial education organization will always have far-reaching impact. It may be positive or challenging, but it remains that the new judicial educator will have to work hard to establish trust and confidence… the judicial educator’s stock in trade. No less important is providing guidance to the consumers of judicial education so curricula are developed with appropriate emphasis on learning styles and learning environments.
—–
David Gordon is the Academic Coordinator for the Judicial Education Unit at the Nevada Supreme Court, a position he has held since 2007. Prior to joining the Judicial Education Unit, he was the Supreme Court’s Certified Court Interpreter Program Coordinator. Mr. Gordon is a former Naval Officer and military linguist.
According to The Nation’s Report Card, the official site for results from the National Assessment of Educational Progress, high school seniors are falling behind in their understanding of government and civics, scoring less than 50% on national tests.
And unless you pursue a career in law, government, or politics, it doesn’t get any better after high school. A study done by the Annenberg Public Policy Center in September of 2011 claims that only 38% of adults surveyed could name all three branches of government, and 33% of those surveyed couldn’t name any.
So it seems that people who know very little about government could be hired into government jobs. As educators, we may feel the need to rectify this lack of knowledge in our employees to make them more effective, to increase their job satisfaction, and to create better role models for the public.
Kristopher Steele, of Ohio, and his co-worker, Margaret Allen, have been contemplating civics education for court staff for several years. Since court staff can come to government jobs from a wide variety of backgrounds, Steele feels they need a good grounding in the profession. “Many of them see themselves as paper pushers,” Steele says, “and don’t understand why quality and timeliness are important. They see a file as a stack of papers. We want them to see a file as a family or a child.” Steele believes that if court staff members understand the impact they have on the system as a whole, they will be able to make better decisions about their work.
Ohio has recently mandated education standards for parole officers, and Steele and his colleagues are working to get that education in place. Included in the plan are four online, on-demand modules about the Criminal Justice System and the Court. These modules will cover the criminal justice system in general, the authority of a probation officer and the role of the court, concepts of due process, and ethical behavior for parole officers. Steele hopes that parts of these modules can be used to provide civics education to all employees of the court.
Dan Rettig, a senior attorney in Florida, was asked to create a course that provides court staff a basic understanding of the working of Florida government. As part of the course’s field test, he administered an informal pretest to a sample of non-attorney court employees. They averaged a score of only 68.5%. His judges were stunned that employees of the court system could know so little of state government as a whole. Rettig’s course aims to fill that gap by teaching the concepts of the constitution, the separation of powers, the role of the judiciary, and the function of court administration.
Like Ohio, Rettig also chose to deliver his course electronically in an asynchronous, on-demand format, making it quickly and easily accessible to employees all over the state. After researching the options, Rettig selected Adobe Captivate as his authoring tool.
It took Rettig about a year to do a thorough needs and learner analysis, write the content, develop the course in Captivate, and test the course. One of Rettig’s challenges was that most people cannot grasp the amount of time it takes to develop an online course. “It’s not like putting together a PowerPoint presentation,” he says. To make an online course interesting, interactive, and appropriate to the audience takes a lot more effort, but the effort can be well worth it for a course that is reused multiple times and eliminates the need for employees to travel.
The course has been well received in Florida, and its use by employees is increasing as managers incorporate it into their employee orientation plans. Initially, Rettig’s course was available only to employees of the court. It has now been made available to the public on the Florida Courts website. You can view the course here.
Like Florida, Indiana chose an online format for their civics education. Indiana utilized the services of the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) to create their Trial Court Staff Orientation Tool that aims to educate court staff about Indiana’s state government.
Judge Barbara Harcourt of Indiana, much like Steele, believes that the more court employees understand about their role in the system, and the importance of the justice system as a whole, the more they can feel confident in themselves and the greater ability they have to assist customers.
Judge Harcourt proposed that Indiana create an on-line orientation for court staff that gives them an accurate picture of Indiana courts, makes them feel welcome and valued, helps them identify and properly handle ethical issues they may encounter, and understand the importance of quality customer service.
For help in creating the course, Indiana turned to the NCSC and Daniel Straub, a professional trainer who works often with courts. Judge Harcourt and her staff gathered material they found in existing documents and training and sent it to Straub who organized it into a course. NCSC filmed Straub’s presentation and created the course using the Sakai platform. Indiana’s Orientation Tool is very similar in format to the NCSC’s “Different Work: A First Course in Effective Supervision.”
“Everyone at every level of the branch participated in getting this course off the ground,” says Judge Harcourt, and the response has been amazing. Judge Harcourt received many emails from long-term employees saying this course really broadened their knowledge of the court system.
In addition to the course itself, Indiana created a guidebook for supervisors of employees who take the course. This guidebook explains that the Orientation Tool is not a complete orientation to an employee’s job, but just to the workings of the state court system. It also contains exercises that a supervisor could use with employees to support their learning.
Indiana is willing to allow NASJE members to view their course; email Judge Barbara Harcourt to request a password. Judge Harcourt says that this course will need to be updated at some time, maybe even to a different delivery method. “At that time,” she says, “we’d be open to the idea of including other states in the project.”
As it seems many states agree that increasing court employees’ knowledge about the operations of state government in general is a worthwhile pursuit, perhaps civics education that can be used by many states would be valuable. There will always be differences between the operations and organization of different state courts, but concepts like due process, ethics, customer service, and distinctions between public and private sector employees might be common to all states. As Steele claims, “it would be great if we could share resources so we don’t have to reinvent the wheel.”
If you have civics, government, or orientation education that you would be willing to share with your fellow NASJE members, you can share it on the Member’s Only website. From the NASJE Member’s Only Homepage, click on “Newsletter Extras!” Then click on the discussion group titled “Civics/Government Education for Court Staff.” (Depending on your computer settings, you may need to click the arrow to move to page 2 of Newsletter Extras!) In the discussion group you can add your course material, ask questions, comment on submissions by others, and more.
If you have trouble logging on to the Member’s Only website, contact Joseph Sawyer or William Brunson for assistance.
—–
Jennifer J. Wadsworth serves as an educator in Iowa’s Judicial Branch. As part of a small Education Division, she does a little bit of everything. Her focus lately has been on eLearning design and on-demand facilitation.
Jennifer graduated from Iowa State University with an M. Ed. in Adult Education, Curriculum Design, and Training & Development. While in college, she served on the board of the student chapter of the American Society for Training and Development (ASTD) for several years and later served as president of the Hawkeye Chapter in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. As president, Jennifer and the board designed, obtained funding for, and taught a Train-the-Trainer seminar for the community to promote the use of Adult Education principles in local businesses.
During her fifteen years in the education field, she has worked as a trainer for a variety of organizations, including software companies, business coaching groups, educational institutions, and both state and federal government. Though she frequently teaches technology skills, she has also designed new employee programs; taught communication, management, and change leadership courses; and written numerous newsletter articles, job aids, and other training documents.
by Lee Ann Barnhardt, Director of Education, North Dakota Supreme Court
Law and literature courses are common offerings in law schools across the country and are a regular feature in many judge trainings. In these instances, literature is used as a way of understanding the complex issues that are faced in the justice system. This serves a purpose, but there is also benefit in extending the study of literature to judicial staff beyond the bench.
Using literature as a teaching tool in court staff training provides a means for employees to achieve self-understanding and to see their work and their lives from a different point of view. Literature allows individuals to develop capacity for empathy and to achieve self-understanding. Viewing the world through the lens of a particular character allows individuals time to think and reflect on complex issues, something that the hectic pace of the court system rarely allows. Literature gives exposure to other ideologies and points of view and provides employees with a resource in resolving complex ethical and value-laden problems.
Literature lets staff think beyond the nuts and bolts of process and procedure. As Pat Murrell and William Carpenter wrote in their article, “Reconnecting with Values and Ethics,” Judges Journal (Spring 1999), “as individuals reach a level of technical proficiency and specialization in their work, they are no longer interested simply in more substantive content, but wish to engage with the larger issues and more universal concerns.”
It is also important for court staff to be comfortable with the storytelling format. We often hear that litigants in court just want to be heard. They want a chance to tell their story. Teaching with literature helps employees communicate clearly and precisely and helps them see the court system from another’s point of view. This is important in professions where the narrative of another’s story is so imperative to ensure the enactment of justice.
There are many legal topics found in literature including ethics, access to courts, the death penalty, delays in justice, and trial procedure. But there are also great works that touch on larger social issues such as diversity, gender fairness, mental illness, substance abuse, and violence. These and others impact the court system as a whole and lead to rich discussion on both professional and personal levels.
In North Dakota, we added a law and literature session to our juvenile court officer training about four years ago. The session has been well received. Topics covered include bullying, gun violence, substance abuse, cultural competency, and autism spectrum disorder. Both novels and short stories have been used. This year, we will add a session for our clerk of court training. The sessions not only increase the employee’s appreciation of literature, but also increase their understanding of human development and the human condition.
Looking at the world through the eyes of literary characters helps participants understand themselves and how their values and beliefs influence their work in the court system and ultimately justice for the litigants in our system. Literature provides a lens through which to look at the human condition and the role of values in the judiciary.
Educating and training court personnel is every bit as important as educating our judges, but often it gets less airtime. So NASJE News is launching a new feature category exclusively dedicated to education for court personnel, starting with this article.
In preparation for the launch, I surveyed NASJE membership to learn about the types of education we collectively provide to court staff. The survey received 35 responses representing 24 states and the District of Columbia, the province of Ontario, and two national agencies. Many thanks to all of you who took the time to respond.
Nearly 89% of respondents indicate they support the education and training of court staff. However, the percentages of budgets dedicated to court staff range from less than 5% to 100%, so it’s clear that the degree to which court staff are supported ranges widely. Whether courts are unified or non-unified also impacted responses. Approximately 59% of respondents indicate they work in a unified court while 41% do not. Additionally, some respondents only support a small portion of court staff, such as a specific job type, rather than all staff; and some respondents are dedicated to supporting court staff only while their peers are assigned to support judicial officers.
Slightly more than half of the respondents indicate their court has mandatory education for all court personnel. Some of these requirements seem to be supported by statute while others are court policy. Some of the mandatory education includes ethics, discrimination, diversity, harassment, new employee orientation, and supervisory skills. Primarily, though, requirements seem to be based on the model of continuing education hours per year. The reported required hours ranges from 6 to 20.
Sometimes, requiring mandatory education for staff can be complicated when staff work under labor contracts. Twenty-seven percent of respondents indicated some portion of their staff is unionized.
Distance education is getting a lot of play in state courts for a variety of topics. Seventy-two percent of respondents have used synchronous distance education, such as webinars and phone or video conferencing, and asynchronous education, such as on-demand computer-based training or videos. However, small group and conference-style live education is still very much the core of most education programs.
The topics of interest to court employees vary widely, from computer skills to customer service, from CPR to court security. The good news is that court staff personnel are getting a wide variety of educational opportunities in many states!
Over the next five years, respondents feel that a variety of technology topics will become increasingly important, from learning to use an e-filing system to understanding how social media can impact the court system. Many people commented that electronic delivery of content will also become important as the time and money available for traveling for live training dwindles.
Comments also indicate education that helps increase retention and succession planning may be forefront in educators’ minds, such as management skills, motivation and wellness, respectful behavior, diversity, onboarding, etc. There is a strong leaning toward increasing an employee’s breadth of knowledge – understanding why they do what they do and how it is important – rather than just on specific, task-oriented knowledge and skills learned in great depth.
As a disclaimer, I must say that the observations made in this article are based solely on the responses to the survey and may or may not be representative of state courts in general. In fact, one truth this survey did reveal is that state court education programs run the gamut from well-developed to “barely there,” and while many courts are interested in similar topics, they may not be interested in them at the same time and may approach them in very different ways. The world of state court education is one of “wondrous variety.”
The raw data from the survey is available on the members-only website for your review. If you did not get the chance to complete the survey, it will remain open at http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/WB5CDM3 for you to contribute to our data collection. Updated copies will be added to the members-only site periodically.
The next article in this series will examine how state courts educate non-law trained staff on concepts of government, civics, and the role our court system plays in society. If you are willing to discuss the challenges you’ve faced in this area, relate your experiences teaching these topics, or share course content you’ve developed to address this need, please contact me at Jennifer.Wadsworth@iowacourts.gov.
Jennifer J. Wadsworth serves as an educator in Iowa’s Judicial Branch. As part of a small Education Division, she does a little bit of everything. Her focus lately has been on eLearning design and on-demand facilitation.
Jennifer graduated from Iowa State University with an M. Ed. in Adult Education, Curriculum Design, and Training & Development. While in college, she served on the board of the student chapter of the American Society for Training and Development (ASTD) for several years and later served as president of the Hawkeye Chapter in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. As president of the Hawkeye Chapter of the American Society for Training and Development (ASTD), Jennifer and the board designed, obtained funding for, and taught a Train-the-Trainer seminar for the community to promote the use of Adult Education principles in local businesses.
During her fifteen years in the education field, she has worked as a trainer for a variety of organizations, including software companies, business coaching groups, educational institutions, and both state and federal government. Though she frequently teaches technology skills, she has also designed new employee programs; taught communication, management, and change leadership courses; and written numerous newsletter articles, job aids, and other training documents.
In June of 2009, employees of the Washington State Administrative Office of the Courts gathered to hear the news about state budget cuts. Within minutes, State Administrator for the Courts Jeff Hall relayed that the money for the Presiding Judges conference had been eliminated from the budget. The Washington Court Education Services team had to figure out how to provide appropriate learning opportunities for this important group. The answer came a few months later when the State Justice Institute provided a grant of $25,000 to fund a test of a blended learning model for the courts. This grant took advantage of resources already on hand at the Washington AOC: Skilled educators, well-established processes, and the newly acquired web-conferencing system Adobe Connect Pro and associated eLearning software Adobe Presenter to help solve the problem of diminishing budgets.
In this article, you will find a definition of blended learning, a description of the grant project, an outline of web-based learning capabilities used, and lessons learned for future blended learning projects.
What constitutes blended learning? According to the Sloan Consortium, blended learning consists of courses or programs in which 30%-79% of the learning is offered online while the rest is face-to-face (Allen, Seaman, and Garrett, p. 5). To test a blended model for our courts, we envisioned three blended learning series consisting of 2-3 electronic learning modules and one single or part day face-to-face module. Using this model, travel could be limited to one day for most participants, hotel and meal costs could be drastically limited, topics could still be dealt with in some depth, while still providing some time for networking and collegiality.
The Education Team proposed the creation of three (later increased to four) iterations of a blended learning model. For the electronic learning modules we combined either webinars, which are live (synchronous) instructor led sessions, or self-paced eLearning (asynchronous) sessions, followed by a face-to-face session conceived of as a capstone event. Important to the plan was the idea that all sessions needed to be interrelated and interactive, with ideas and concepts building on the ones previously taught. The face-to-face session was designed to allow the opportunity to synthesize, analyze, and evaluate the learning from the web-based events to create a tangible product learners could use. We used the word “product” very loosely to mean anything from action plans, forms, bench cards, and checklists to skills acquisition through role plays, discussion groups, coaching and the like. We wanted our face-to-face events to be used to enhance education in ways that are difficult to reproduce in web-based sessions.
We designed our first iteration of the model for the presiding judges and their court administrators. With budget development as the topic, we presented two live webinars that talked about leadership, relationships, and processes both within and outside of the courts. We recorded the webinars for future viewing by those unable to attend the live event. The self-paced module consisted of a nuts and bolts approach to budget controls and performance monitoring, complete with exercises for practice. The last event, a face-to-face symposium, brought together judges and administrators to share concerns and ideas with elected and appointed officials from the executive and legislative branches of Washington State and local government.
The second iteration, for courthouse facilitators, had a similar design, although the three electronic modules were more sequential than in the budget series. The facilitators learned and practiced techniques on the topic of Temperaments and Dealing with Difficult People.
In the third iteration, we combined several traditional teaching methods with electronic learning modalities. With Search and Seizure as the topic, participants completed a reading and self-test, answered discussion questions, considered hypothicals and participated in a live discussion via web-conference for each of four learning modules. Learners accessed all parts of the series through an Adobe Connect curriculum which served as an online “one-stop” shop.
Developing and teaching in the blended model proved to be so cost-effective that we were able to apply to SJI to continue the model testing with grant funds so far unused. Our fourth iteration is underway, and considers the topic Procedural Fairness. It is organized quite differently, and involves reading an article and completing a web-based court self-assessment, attending a live conference session with national speaker Judge Kevin Burke, participating in a webinar with Washington judges as facilitators, and completing the self-assessment a second time to gauge improvement. As can be seen from the contents of the learning series, the modalities used to present learning modules evolved with practice, and the order different modalities occurred varied as time went on.
This evolution occurred for several reasons. First of all, we learned as we practiced and tested to add different methods to our repertoire. Thus, by round three, we had added readings, self-tests and discussion groups to the web-sessions, and used those sessions like a classroom discussion instead of a lecture. By round four, we added a web-based self-assessment designed to be completed twice and to function as a self pre-test and post-test for individual judges or courts.
Thus, we arrive at lesson number one for creating blended learning: choose the modality to suit the learning objectives, not the other way around. Always choose the most effective means to teach your learning objectives. If, for example, the material requires working with content, not people, a self-paced module might be perfect. If your audience needs to access the information at their own pace, or at any time, self-paced is a good choice. If coaching is involved, face-to-face may be best. Wikis, threaded discussions, blogs and many other tools can be used. The possibilities are many, but the modality used should fit your learning objectives.
Lesson number two: Whichever modality is chosen the learning needs to be interactive. As defined in Michael Allen’s Guide to e-Learning, instructional interactivity is “interaction that actively stimulates the learner’s mind to do those things that improve ability and readiness to perform effectively” (Allen, p. 94). This can be particularly challenging with self-paced learning, where there isn’t a live instructor. In a self-paced design, a read and click module will likely put learners to sleep. Strive to create modules where learners have to make decisions and choices through scenario based learning or simulations. For webinars, a talking head will drive learners directly to their email or other work. Create opportunities for interaction through polling, status checks, the chat pod, and in smaller sessions, by opening the microphone to audience members. Experts advise an interaction anywhere from every 3-5 minutes to every 6-7 minutes (Hofmann, p. 12).
In addition to interactivity, ensure all the elements of your blend are coordinated. This is lesson number three. If for example you require a self-paced lesson prior to learners attending a classroom event, devise a way to make sure they have completed the module on time. Do not teach over again something you expect learners to know before they arrive in your classroom. You will frustrate those who did the work ahead of time, enable those who don’t, and waste valuable teaching time in unneeded review. By the same token, allow learners to skip parts of a series they already know (Allen, p. 88). For example, if a judge has worked extensively on a particular kind of case, why should she have to read the case again to advance through your curriculum? A quiz could work as a “test-out” and allow the learner to move on.
Lesson four, make sure the technology works. Quizzes, pre-work, webinars, job aids, whatever your modality, it should function the way you expect it to. Things that function well at a central location with powerful servers and excellent internet capabilities do not necessarily work in a remote location. For example, we stopped using webcams in our webinars because while audio usually works fine, video takes a lot of bandwidth and can be problematic. Screen resolution and older software can also be issues. Sometimes it is the computer user who is the problem. Be flexible, try modules on computers away from your system, and test, test, test. That said, don’t be afraid to make use of technology because it might not work. If you do your homework, you will likely find a solution and be successful.
Lesson five also has to do with success, and the lesson is be patient! You will find resistance to learning online among your clients. Gradually increase your offerings, teaching their use and publicizing them carefully. Guide your learners to accept that online learning can be just as effective as face-to-face learning by producing excellent learning modules in appropriate modalities. It will take time. We have found more judges are beginning to participate in webinars and there is greater acceptance of web-conferencing for meetings. Our court staffers often prefer self-paced modules because they can do them at their own pace when they have time. You won’t persuade everyone right away, but with time, solid learning opportunities, interactive modules, and well-coordinated events, you will eventually build your audience.
You not only have to convince your audience, you also have to convince your faculty. Lesson six is train your faculty for their new role. For a self-paced module, they may fill the role of subject-matter expert while you do instructional design, while for a webinar, they should act more like a facilitator than a talking head. In a December 2010 Adobe event, trainer Ken Molay of Webinar Success provides valuable insights about presenting webinars in a recording called “Training Webinars 101”. A more advanced lesson on facilitating webinars comes from author Cynthia Clay in “Great Webinars: Crossing the Chasm to High-Performance Virtual Delivery”, sponsored by the eLearning Guild and recorded February 2, 2012. Consider asking your faculty facilitators to watch Mr. Molay’s presentation first, and as they build confidence, move them to Ms. Clay’s presentation. Follow the blogs from various eLearning publications to improve your skills and your faculty’s skills in this domain.
Lesson seven is money talks, and as long as you have a web-conferencing system and eLearning development software, it can be cheaper to produce a blended learning event, or any online event, than face-to-face training. Given the choice between no training and eLearning due to lack of funding, our audience chose eLearning. We limited travel time and expense by holding our face-to-face events in locations easily accessible to large numbers of learners. In addition to fewer travel expenses, our webinars and self-paced events limit time away from the office and make learning more accessible.
It is not easy to persuade judicial branch clients of the value of these new ways of learning. It takes research, planning, testing, coordination, and a new skill set to successfully put together blended learning events, or any online learning event. It might provide perspective if you keep these numbers in mind as you tackle the topic: approximately 5.6 million U.S. college and university students enrolled in one or more online courses in the fall of 2009, reflecting a 21% increase in online enrollment compared to only a 2% increase in overall student population in the same period (Allen and Seaman, p. 8). College and university administrators predict continued growth in this sector. These students represent our future court employees, lawyers, judges, and educators. Soon, I believe we will find our learners demanding online learning opportunities from us.
Is blended learning always the best solution? No, not always, but appropriately planned and implemented, it can be the best approach in many situations.
References
1. Allen, I. E., Seaman, J., and Garrett, R. (2007) Blending In: The Extent and Promise of Blended Education in the United States, Sloan Consortium.
2. Allen, I. E., Seaman, J. (2010). Class Differences: Online Education in the United States 2010, Babson Survey Research Group.
3. Allen, M. (2008). Guide to e-Learning, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
4. Hofmann, J., (2011). “Top 10 Challenges of Blended Learning,” Training Magazine p. 10-12.
***** Nancy F. Smith joined the team at the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) in September 2008 as a Court Education Professional. She has worked in education for most of her career, including 14 years as a teacher at the community college and secondary levels in Tucson, Arizona. Prior to moving to the AOC, she assisted the Deans of Curriculum at the Evergreen State College in Olympia planning and producing the curriculum for Evergreen’s full-time programs. In a past life, she spent four years as an Army Intelligence Officer.
At the AOC, Ms. Smith supports the Appellate Judges, County Clerks, Presiding Judges and District and Municipal Court Judges Education Committees. In addition, she enjoys running the Institute for New Court Employees in the fall. In June of 2010, Ms. Smith completed a certificate in Electronic Learning Design and Development at the University of Washington. She has organized a variety of webinar and self-paced learning modules for different groups supported by the AOC. In 2009, Ms. Smith was awarded a grant from the State Justice Institute to establish a model for blended learning (combining e-learning with face-to-face learning) for Washington Courts.
Ms. Smith has broad experience in multi-cultural education, and has traveled widely in the United States and abroad. A French linguist, she earned her bachelor’s degree from the College of William and Mary in Virginia, and her master’s in French Language and Literature from the Université Libre de Bruxelles in Brussels, Belgium. She is a certified community college and secondary teacher. She also studied Spanish at the University of Arizona.
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
The history of this effort began when NASJE undertook, with support from State Justice Institute (SJI), the task of developing a comprehensive set of curriculum designs to advance the profession of judicial branch education based on core competency areas.
Nearly 89% of respondents indicate they support the education and training of court staff. However, the percentages of budgets dedicated to court staff range from less than 5% to 100%, so it’s clear that the degree to which court staff are supported ranges widely. Whether courts are unified or non-unified also impacted responses. Approximately 59% of respondents indicate they work in a unified court while 41% do not. Additionally, some respondents only support a small portion of court staff, such as a specific job type, rather than all staff; and some respondents are dedicated to supporting court staff only while their peers are assigned to support judicial officers.
Over the next five years, respondents feel that a variety of technology topics will become increasingly important, from learning to use an e-filing system to understanding how social media can impact the court system. Many people commented that electronic delivery of content will also become important as the time and money available for traveling for live training dwindles.