Upcoming NASJE Webinar: Procedural Fairness for Court Staff: A Brief Curriculum for Teaching
NASJE members, please join colleagues Joan Bishop and Kelly Tait in a webinar discussion of how judicial branch educators can approach teaching Procedural Fairness to court staff.
Date: Thursday, February 25, 2016 Time: 11:00 AM Pacific; 12:00 PM Mountain; 1:00 PM Central and 2:00 PM Eastern
The newest NASJE curriculum design, The Journey toward Diversity, Fairness and Access through Education provides a roadmap for teaching this topic, where public confidence is directly related to the values of basic fairness and equal access for all citizens. Learn why it is important to teach this topic to court staff and how to provide concrete examples showing how they can exhibit these traits in their daily work.
All members should receive directions on how to join the Webinar via email. Watch for them, and join your colleagues nationwide for this valuable learning opportunity.
NCSC features presidents of its justice system partners in a piece they do called “Association Insight”. In March 2015 they featured NASJE president Kelly Tait.
Leadership development is a personal journey that most often takes place in public. Admired leadership characteristics (see endnote 2) are surprisingly consistent across organizations, cultures, and professions (Kouzes and Posner 2012). Though the characteristics may be the same, how they are expressed will distinguish successful leaders from those who are not. I contend that judicial branch educators (hereafter referred to as educators) are leaders and what they lead is change through education.
In 1995, I wrote an article for NASJE News titled “Creating Presence”. I heard from many colleagues about how helpful the concepts were in establishing the importance of education in the courts. Now, two decades later, creating presence is even more important. External forces that will not abate increasingly drive contemporary change. Directly meeting the challenges of change with a clear vision and unified voice is required to thrive in what will likely be a very exciting and frustrating time.
To meet the external forces with confidence, educators must know what the forces are, have a strong leadership plan, develop a versatile programmatic foundation, and retain staff members who are mission driven. One of the most comprehensive syntheses and analyses of the trends in global change was conducted by Al Gore and published in his book The Future (2013). He identified six emerging trends that are present now and will continue to expand in their size and influence for a long time to come. The trends are:
Earth Inc.—representing the deeply connected global economy that operates as an entity unto itself, which directs capital flow, labor, consumerism, and national governments.
The Global Mind—representing the planet-wide electronic communications grid that connects billions of ideas, people, information, and products that have given rise to all forms of intelligent devices, including robots.
Power in the Balance—representing a new balance of economic, political, and military power where the new equilibrium is shifting and multiplying global power centers.
Outgrowth—representing rapid and unsustainable population growth depleting the resources that humans have relied upon since the beginning of time.
The Reinvention of Life and Death—representing new biological, biochemical, genetic, and materials science technologies changing the molecular structure of life itself.
The Edge—representing the emergence of a new relationship between human civilization and the earth’s atmosphere and climate that allowed humankind to flourish for millennia.
You may think that there is nothing new here. That was my original reaction. However, the analysis presented by Gore demonstrates that the shifts are deeper, broader, and more rapid than originally envisioned. Thus, their impact is greater and more systemic. Educators who stay current with global trends can readily determine the impact these trends will have on the types of cases that will come before the courts resulting in the need to change the subject matter of education programs. What they may not have considered is how to maintain a strong and vibrant education organization in the midst of the changes. In this discussion, I focus on ten areas for educators to consider in their own leadership development, as well as the development of their organizations. They are: guiding philosophy, mission, values, voice, thinking, acting, competence, forward-looking, reflecting, and renewal.
Guiding Philosophy
Education in a judicial system is often defined as continuing professional development and training to address the presenting knowledge, skills, and abilities performance needs of judges and court personnel. It is true that education involves the aforementioned. I also challenge educators to use education as an impetus for change thus, leading courts to a place of prominence that provides certainty and stability in a changing world.
If judicial education is a vehicle for change then educators are the change agents. By extension educators are leaders. They must have a guiding philosophy about the role of education. Casting judicial education as a change movement implies that the educator’s philosophy must be larger, more powerful, and more long-range than it would otherwise be. Under this framework, judicial education is not creating educational events. It is leading the court organization to greater levels of achievement and judges and court personnel to excellent performance that transforms lives. Such a guiding philosophy will require educators to challenge the typical processes, goals, content, and intent of education. In short, they must challenge themselves and others to take a different path and to seek greater results. “Challenge is the opportunity for greatness. People do their best when there’s the chance to change the way things are…Leaders venture out. They test and they take risks with bold ideas” (Kouzes and Posner 2012, 156). Educators who see themselves as leaders will not be complacent about the role and opportunity of education to significantly improve the quality of life of those people who depend on the courts to be heard and protected. Adopting a guiding philosophy provides educators with a tool they can use to measure the progress they are making in developing education and training that challenges courts to meet their calling with strength and commitment.
Can adopting a guiding philosophy do even more? Yes, it can. A guiding philosophy becomes the center around which everything circles. Once a guiding philosophy is established, it can be used for many purposes. Perhaps one of the most important, in addition to educational programming, is recruiting education staff. Job announcements, position descriptions, and interview questions that are centered on the guiding philosophy of the organization act as the first level of screening. In order to ensure that educators are building organizations that live their mission and values, they must have staff members who are passionate about the guiding philosophy. Without that passion, educators will spend valuable time trying to motivate people who cannot be motivated because they do not “feel it.” Jim Collins in Good to Great (2001) referred to this as getting the right people on the bus without which, he contends, no leader can succeed.
Mission
The mission of judicial education is often explained in terms of inputs, outputs, and outcomes using educational terminology. Under this framework education seems devoid of passion and the ability to inspire. People are not motivated when they are educated to be ordinary and that includes education staff. Therefore, the entire organization must make transformation its sole mission. Jan Phillips, author of The Art of Original Thinking-The Making of a Thought Leader describes the power of transformation: “Transformation originates in people who see a better way or a fairer world, people who reveal themselves, disclose their dreams, and unfold their hopes in the presence of others. And this unfolding, this revelation of raw, unharnessed desire, this deep longing to be a force for good in the world is what inspires others to feel their own longings, to remember their own purpose, and to act, perhaps for the first time, in accordance with their inner spirit” (2006, 11).
An inspiring mission statement has many purposes. It serves to guide personnel selection, budgeting, and educational programming.
The education organization’s mission statement provides educators with an excellent second-level screening tool to evaluate potential job candidates. Individuals that educators chose for second interviews will require greater scrutiny. Do they have what it takes to be part of a team that is educating for transformation? Educators already know that candidates are passionate about the guiding philosophy or a second interview would not be scheduled. Now, the educators must discern whether candidates can internalize the guiding philosophy so that their passion drives them to live and breathe the transformation mission of education for change. Educators can make that assessment by using the organization’s mission statement as the basis for interview questions. For example, educators can ask candidates to discuss what the mission statement means, how they believe it defines organizational identity, and how it can be applied when developing and delivering education programs.
Mission statements are also an excellent tool for building and gaining support for the education budget. An education organization that is preparing to address new subject matter or new delivery methods may require different infusions of money from multiple sources. Therefore, every item in the budget should be tied to the mission statement in a way that guides all resource and expenditure decisions. Educators must carefully consider the budget justification packages that accompany any legislative or executive branch request, as well as those requests that are part of grant applications. Failure to do so will likely result in an unsuccessful attempt to secure funding.
The educational programming, itself, must be a full embodiment of the mission. Each offering is an opportunity to be an expression of the transformation mission. From needs assessment to instructor selection to program content to teaching, the mission must act as the center from which everything else emanates.
Values
The very act of educating is an expression of values. Consider this explanation of values by Kouzes and Posner: “Values constitute your personal ‘bottom line’. They serve as guides to action. They inform the priorities you set and the decisions you make. They tell you when to say yes and when to say no. They also help you explain the choices you make and why you made them…All of the most critical decisions a leader makes involve values” (2012, 49).
Judicial systems that offer education to judges and court personnel are making a statement about the importance of knowledge and information in evolving the skills, abilities, and aptitudes of its members. The values that leaders hold become evident by what they say and do. Educators as leaders must know what they value. Their values are articulated through the way they approach education from content selection to delivery format to defining learner groups. Each and every education opportunity and challenge is an avenue for educators to express the values they hold about the role of courts in society. The importance of educators discovering and living their values cannot be overstated and that is certainly true if they want to lead.
Organizational development is a monumental task for educators. It starts with understanding that attending to the whole court organization is part of the mission of education. Articulating this mission as a value demonstrates that the courts will not settle for anything less than the best—the best personnel, the best budgets, the best services, and the best programs. To further a value-centered approach, educators can lead the way by evaluating whether the programming meets the values of the organization. As such, living the values is more than a slogan—it is a call to action.
Voice
When leaders develop their voice, they express their guiding philosophy, mission, and values in their own words. In so doing, they are perceived as authentic. The extent to which a person is authentic is the extent to which they will be trusted. If there is any incongruity between what leaders say and do, it will immediately be recognized and their credibility and authority will be comprised. Stephen M.R. Covey in his book The Speed of Trust-The One thing That Changes Everything explained the importance of trust this way: “Simply put, trust means confidence. The opposite of trust—distrust—is suspicion. When you trust people, you have confidence in them—in their integrity and in their abilities. When you distrust people, you are suspicious of them—of their integrity, their agenda, their capabilities, or their track record. It’s that simple” (2006, 5). Educators as leaders must develop ways of communicating that are consistent with what they care about. In short, they must find and use their voice to achieve their goal of advancing the rule of law through the expert preparation of judges and court personnel. A consistent and authentic voice sends the signal that the advancement of the judiciary can safely be placed in the hands of the educator.
How can consistency of voice be conveyed across the management and operations of the education organization? Using consistent voice can be evaluated by matching guiding philosophies, missions, and values against what the educator speaks, writes, and does. It is not just the educator who will be evaluated for consistency in voice. Others associated with the education enterprise will also be assessed for their consistent messaging, including staff members, advisory committee members, and instructors. It is the responsibility of the educator to institute a consistent voice across the education organization. While this requires discipline, it is necessary or credibility will be lost. Where there is no credibility there is no success. Thus, individual performance appraisal must include the achievement of consistent voice.
Thinking
Asking the right questions and developing an intellectual framework to assess the veracity of the answers is the core of critical thinking. Asking questions is not foreign to educators as they routinely do so in the form of needs assessment and evaluation. Developing a critical thinking stance is necessary when the educator is a leader. Browne and Keeley in their book Asking the Right Questions A Guide to Critical Thinking (2010) explained critical thinking this way: “Critical thinking consists of an awareness of a set of interrelated critical questions, plus the ability and willingness to ask and answer them at appropriate times” (3). In the same book, they also explained that there are two types of critical thinking—weak-sense and strong-sense. They distinguish the two forms: “Weak-sense critical thinking is the use of critical thinking to defend your current beliefs. Strong-sense critical thinking is the use of the same skills to evaluate all claims and beliefs, especially your own” (8).
To sustain judicial education as a champion of change, the educator must ask the hard and probing questions that may lead to unpopular answers and issues that the judiciary doesn’t want to acknowledge or address. The very act of educating can produce critical thinking results if education is a forum for open, honest, and probing discussions expressed from multiple viewpoints. It is very easy for judicial systems to be insular and for weak-sense thinking to flourish. Brown and Keeley (2010) listed the four values of critical thinking, which are instructive for the development of educators as strong-sense leaders who in turn develop educational experiences that promote strong-sense thinking among the learners. The four values are:
Autonomy. “Surely, we all want to pick and choose from the widest possible array of possibilities; otherwise, we may miss the one decision or option that we would have chosen if only we had not paid attention to only those who shared our value priorities. Supercharged autonomy requires us to listen to those with value priorities different from our own” (13).
Curiosity. “…you need to listen and read, really listen and read. Other people have the power to move you forward, to liberate you from your current condition of partial knowledge. To be a critical thinker requires you to then ask questions about what you have encountered. Part of what you gain from other people is their insights and understanding, when what they have to offer meets the standards of good reasoning” (13-14).
Humility. “Certainly some of us have insights that others do not have, but each of us is very limited in what we can do, and at honest moments we echo Socrates when he said that he knew that he did not know. Once we accept this reality, we can better recognize that our experiences with other people can fill in at least a few of the gaps in our present understanding” (14).
Respect for good reasoning wherever you find it.”…all conclusions and opinions are not equally worthwhile. When you find strong reasoning, regardless of the race, age, wealth, or citizenship of the speaker or writer, rely on it until a better set of reasoning comes along” (14).
Browne and Keeley (2010) instruct people to become critical thinkers and engage in good reasoning by asking the following questions:
What are the issues and conclusions?
What are the reasons?
What words or phrases are ambiguous?
What are the value and descriptive assumptions?
Are there any fallacies in the reasoning?
How good is the evidence—intuition, personal experience, testimonials, and appeals to authority?
How good is the evidence—personal observation, research studies, case examples, and analogies?
Are there rival causes?
Are the statistics deceptive?
What significant information is omitted?
What reasonable conclusions are possible?
Edward De Bono (1999) encourages leaders to engage in new ways of thinking and he does so through his Six Hats method (see endnote 3). DeBono contends that people put themselves in thinking boxes, which reduces their ability to see a different future and also narrows their actions. “From the past we create standard situations. We judge into which “standard situation box” a new situation falls. Once we have made this judgement (sic), our course of action is clear. Such a system works very well in a stable world. In a stable world the standard situations of the past still apply. But in a changing world the standard situations may no longer apply. Instead of judging our way forward, we need to design our way forward” (3). Educators who lead change can develop learning experiences that result in new designs replacing the old situation boxes of reasoning. It is clear from the trends discussed in The Future (Gore 2013), deep and probing thinking is essential for survival. Therefore, to engage consistently at such a level, educators must be willing to question “what is” to get to “what can be.” According to Warren Berger (2014) it is all about asking the more beautiful question: “A beautiful question is an ambitious yet actionable question that can begin to shift the way we perceive or think about something—and that might serve as a catalyst to bring about change” (8).
Acting
Acting in the realm of education is often defined as curriculum development and program planning. It is indeed action—purposeful action. As Kouzes and Posner wrote: “Leadership is not about who you are; it’s about what you do” (2012, 15). How educators spend their time sends a message about what they value and how they will lead.
The Hedgehog Concept put forward by Jim Collins in his books Good to Great (2001) and Good to Great in the Social Sector (2005) is instructive related to the action of organizations and the people who lead them. While the Hedgehog Concept was initially developed for the private sector with a profit motive, Collins adapted it for the public sector because it can be applied to organizations with a social mission. The Hedgehog Concept is portrayed as three overlapping circles that when working at optimal performance transforms the organization from good to great (2005, 19). The circles have resonance for the courts and can be a factor in developing educational experiences that ignite and support change. “Circle 1: Passion—Understanding what your organization stands for, including its core values, mission, and purpose. Circle 2: Best at—Understanding what your organization can uniquely contribute to the people it touches, better than any other organization on the planet. Circle 3: Resource engine—Understanding what best drives your resource engine, broken into three parts: time, money, and brand” (2005, 19).
Courts are the enforcers of the rule of law. Courts have a mission like no other. Educators can lead through igniting the passion of judges and others to be the best at solving disputes and delivering justice. Thus, the Hedgehog Concept is appropriately applied to the courts and can be advanced by educators when they act as leaders of change. Consider the role that courts will be called upon to play related to Earth Inc., The Global Mind, Power in the Balance, Outgrowth, The Reinvention of Life and Death, and The Edge (Gore 2013). Holding the Hedgehog Concept as an axis for action will become even more important in the coming decades.
Competence
“At some level, competence connects with our dreams, with that part of us that yearns for unity with something greater than ourselves. We want to matter” (Wlodkowski 2008, 309). Educators must be competent in creating competence in others. Therefore, they must excel in adult learning theory, instructional design, subject matter development, teaching methodologies in traditional and electronic formats, needs assessment, and evaluation. Educators as leaders “…significantly increase people’s belief in their own ability to make a difference. They move from being in control to giving over control to others, becoming their coach. They help others learn new skills, develop existing talents, and provide the institutional supports required for ongoing growth and change. In the final analysis leaders turn their constituents into leaders” (Kouzes and Posner 2012, 243).
Educators lead the development of competence and confidence across the judicial branch, which is essential for a fully functioning independent judiciary. In so doing, educators are functioning at peak performance. Peak performance is referred to as flow. “People often refer to being ‘in the flow’ when they feel that they are performing effortlessly and expertly despite the difficulty of the experience. They are confident that their skills match the level of challenge of the experience, even though the challenge might be a bit of a stretch” (Kouzes and Posner 2012, 256). In order for educators to develop peak performance in others, they must first do it for themselves.
Forward-Looking
Effective educators address problems while simultaneously looking over the rim to see what is coming. The research conducted by Kouzes and Posner (2012) related to what people most want in a leader are honesty, forward-looking, competence, and inspiration (2012, 34-35). These elements of leadership remained consistent from 1987 to 2012; and, it has also remained consistent across countries, cultures, ethnicities, organizational functions and hierarchies, genders, levels of education, and age groups (Kouzes and Posner 2012). Leaders who are futuristic seem to command more credibility and, therefore, more respect. “Constituents also must believe that their leader knows where they’re headed and has a vision for the future. An expectation that their leaders be forward-looking is what sets leaders apart from other credible individuals” (Kouzes and Posner 2012, 37).
Education without vision will not drive excellence and certainly will not create change. John M. Bryson in his book Strategic Planning for Public and Nonprofit Organizations (2011) explained what is encompassed in the creation of a vision. “The vision should emphasize purposes, behavior, performance criteria, decision rules, and standards that serve the public and create public value…the vision should include a promise that the organization will support its members’ pursuit of the vision” (2011, 273). When educators lead vision creation, they move from individual action to group action. “When creating with others, all of the aspects of the process are magnified and multiplied due to the additional creators involved…the emotion involved in creating is for something that exists in the imagination” (Conner 1999, 36). While leaders must have a vision for the future, vision making for an organization is a group activity that must ignite the hearts and minds of those involved.
Howard Gardner in 5 Minds for the Future (2008) discussed the kinds of minds that people will need to thrive in the future.
Disciplined mind: “The disciplined mind has mastered at least one way of thinking—a distinctive mode of cognition that characterizes a specific scholarly discipline, craft, or profession” (3).
Synthesizing mind: “The synthesizing mind takes information from disparate sources, understands and evaluates that information objectively, and puts it together in ways that make sense to the synthesizer and also to other persons. Valuable in the past, the capacity to synthesize becomes ever more crucial as information continues to mount at dizzying rates” (3).
Creating mind: “…the creating mind breaks new ground. It puts forth new ideas, poses unfamiliar questions, conjures up fresh ways of thinking, and arrives at unexpected answers” (3).
Respectful mind: “…the respectful mind notes and welcomes differences between human individuals and between human groups, tries to understand these others, and seeks to work effectively with them” (3).
Ethical mind: “…the ethical mind ponders the nature of one’s work and the needs and desires of the society in which one lives. This mind conceptualizes how workers can serve purposes beyond self-interest and how citizens can work unselfishly to improve the lot of all” (3).
Each of the minds just described may cast the future differently. The educator is perfectly positioned to develop the five minds for the future through the educational process. However, educators must be prepared to develop their own minds because leaders always go first.
Reflection
Reflection is essential so that thinking and acting remain purposeful. Parker Palmer in The Active Life: Wisdom for Work, Creativity, and Caring (1990) discussed the need to engage in reflection on the nature of action. “Ultimately, action will help to reveal what the reality is, if we pay attention to its outcomes. These are the crucial links between action and contemplation, for the function of contemplation in all its forms is to penetrate illusion and help us to touch reality” (25). The work of educating requires a great deal of reflection as educating is leading people to new heights of awareness and action. It is a journey of discovery for both the learner and the educator. Public life and the life of leaders can be full of frenetic activity that offers little time for reflection. Therefore, creating reflection time must be intentional. Education that champions change implies that both the educators and learners have engaged in deep thought. Kouzes and Posner (2012) believe that a leader’s ability to excel is dependent on how well the leader knows him/herself and that knowledge comes from inner guidance that is gained through reflection.
Renewal
Renewal implies regeneration—a period of intellectual and physical rest that result in new levels of commitment and motivation. We often think of leadership in terms of grand displays that are larger than life. The truth is that leadership is mastering everyday events. Renewal works the same way in that it is an everyday event without which we will not thrive. What renews one person may not renew another. Exercise, meditation, yoga, reading, gardening, or just sitting with a cup of coffee or tea can be as renewing as a month in the mountains or a day on the beach. Renewal is personal. Renewal is good for the soul. Renewal is mandatory.
Michael A. Singer in his book The Untethered Soul: The Journey Beyond Yourself (2007) contends that the voices in our minds prevent us from living in the present. Living in the present is the only way to renew. Thus, we must find time to disconnect and just be.
Concluding Thoughts
The promise of education is tremendous. The reality of creating change through education is daunting but possible. Education leaders and court leaders—judges and administrators—must commit to the vision of placing education at the center of the administration of justice. Such a commitment will require the selection of educators who are leaders of change.
Educators in the judiciary must have three concepts of their role in courts. One concept is that of curriculum planner, program administrator, teacher, technologist, and evaluator. The second concept is that of a mentor, coach, and leader who provides others with the tools and inspiration they need to reach greater heights of professional performance resulting in the courts being the best in the world at creating justice for all. Third, is organizational caretaker of the soul of the courts through assuring the expression of the mission and values of the courts.
Educators as change leaders should ask three fundamental questions: What world do we want to live in? What role can the court play in creating and sustaining that world? How do we get there together? The answers likely can be found in original thinking. Jan Phillips posits that original thinking is the only thing that will take us to new places of understanding and doing—“…there is a kind of friction as opposing thoughts rub against each other, there is also the potential for creative fire that comes with that friction. And as original thinkers, that’s what we’re after” (2006, 92).
Educators through the curriculum development and program delivery process can create the climate for change that will prepare the courts to meet the future, as outlined by Gore (2013) and likely other futurists who came before him. Dan Cohen (2003, 3-4) identified 8 steps, which create a climate for change:
Increase urgency
Building guiding teams
Get the vision right
Communicate for buy-in
Enable action
Create short-term wins
Don’t let up
Make it stick
Educators must embody the change they wish to create remembering that change, to be successful, must eventually be owned by the system from the bottom up to the top down. “Hierarchical systems evolve from the bottom up. The purpose of the upper layers of the hierarchy is to serve the purposes of the lower layers” (Meadows 2008, 85). Educators must serve the top, the bottom, and all that lies in between—that is leading the edge.
1. The subject of this paper, judicial branch educators as change leaders, was presented at the 6th International Conference on the Training of the Judiciary which was held in 2013 and was sponsored by the International Organization of Judicial Training (IOJT). The conference paper will be published in an upcoming volume of the IOJT Journal. The concepts of the IOJT conference presentation were also presented at the 2014 National Association of State Judicial Educators (NASJE) annual conference. Upon the request of the NASJE President, the contents of the NASJE conference presentation were put to paper and are represented in this article—Maureen Conner. (back to text)
2. Kouzes and Posner (2012, 34-35) researched factors or attributes that comprised admired leadership characteristics among the research respondents from 1987 through 2012. The characteristics they measured over that period were: honest, forward-looking, competent, inspiring, intelligent, broad-minded, fair-minded, dependable, supportive, straightforward, cooperative, determined, courageous, ambitious, caring, loyal, imaginative, mature, self-controlled, and independent. The research respondents were from six continents: Africa, North America, South America, Asia, Europe, and Australia. The research respondents represented different cultures, ethnicities, organizational functions and hierarchies, genders, levels of education, and age groups. (back to text)
3. The Six Hats represent six ways of thinking and are color-coded. The White Hat considers facts and figures. The Red Hat explores emotions and feelings. The Black Hat is cautious and careful thinking. The Yellow Hat is speculative-positive thinking. The Green Hat is creative thinking. The Blue Hat focuses on control of thinking (DeBono 1999). (back to text)
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
The NASJE Board held its Midyear Meeting on March 2-3, expertly hosted by Jeff Schrade in Phoenix. Our two days together were extremely productive and there are many items we want to share with you. Today, our focus is on NASJE’s ongoing strategic planning process.
At a plenary session at the 2014 conference in Chicago, we explored NASJE’s vision and mission as an evolving organization of individuals with both shared and unique interests. The Board reviewed the feedback given in Chicago and is proposing a new mission and vision statement for your consideration.
Vision Statement
Advancing the administration of justice through excellence in judicial branch education.
Mission Statement
The National Association of State Judicial Educators (NASJE) advances the administration of justice by providing support, education and resources to educators who develop quality continuing education for judicial officers and judicial branch personnel.
The Board formed an ad hoc committee to focus on this work, and Lee Ann Barnhardt (ND) has agreed to serve as chair. We would like the strategic plan to be done by our Annual Conference in early October, so it is a relatively short-term (though important) commitment. Please send comments on the above vision and mission statements to Lee Ann via email no later than Friday, April 10. Lee Ann will share all feedback with the Board at our April 21 conference call to further inform our planning.
The Strategic Planning Committee (SPC) is looking for members! NASJE committees will each have a representative on the SPC, but all interested members are welcome to take part in this exciting process. You will hear more about this from your Regional Director in the weeks to come. Contact Lee Ann Barnhardt with questions or to volunteer for the committee.
In 1975, six state judicial educators met and formed this association that now has about 170 members from most of the states as well as from several national organizations and other countries. The Board and NASJE’s many committees are working hard to make our 40th year a great one, with an emphasis on increasing benefits to NASJE members as well as raising the organization’s profile.
We will be doing a series of webcasts for all NASJE members throughout the year. The upcoming webcast on the critical topic of Needs Assessment will be on March 18 at 12:00 noon PDT/ 1:00 pm MDT/ 2:00 pm CDT/ 3:00 pm EDT. Professor Gordon Zimmerman and former NASJE President Robin Wosje are the illustrious faculty for this webcast. We hope you will join us! (See the calendar on this website to sign up for it.) Our thanks to The National Judicial College for generously continuing to support NASJE’s webcasts, including this one.
Save the date: Our Annual Conference Committee is putting together an excellent Annual Conference for 2015, which will be in gorgeous Seattle, Washington, on October 4-7, 2015. Note the date—it’s later in the year than usual for us because it is a collaborative conference. Take a look at the preview of the conference on this website.
The “NASJE Newsletter” celebrates its 30th anniversary this year. Obviously there have been major changes over the years with the evolving technology. There also have been changes just within the last few months as the Newsletter Committee merged with the Website and Technology Committee to form the Communications Committee. We have moved to a monthly format with even more frequent “breaking news” updates.
In addition, we’ve created a new Members Only site with easier accessibility. The Members Only site has a link to the excellent webcast from February 11, 2015, on Creating a Sense of Presence taught by Karen Thorson, former NASJE President and inspiration for NASJE’s Karen Thorson Award. For an overview of the session, see the article on this site: “How Judicial Educators Can Create ‘Presence’ Within the Judicial Branch.” Thanks to Karen and to NASJE’s Western Region led by Joseph Sawyer for this educational session.
NASJE members who do not have the password to the Members Only site can contact me at ktconsulting@aol.com or contact Communications Committee chair Christal Keegan at keegan@judges.org.
We invite you to be part of making 2015 NASJE’s best year ever!
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.
The Department of the Interior Bureau of Indian Affairs has just updated the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) Guidelines for State Courts and Agencies in Indian Child Custody Proceedings. The guidelines support the purpose of ICWA and provide what many feel is long-overdue guidance to state courts and agencies as they work to ensure full implementation of the law. See the new guidelines in Federal Register Vol. 80, No. 37.
An excerpt from the News Release announcing the updated guidelines: “In keeping with President Obama’s commitment to supporting Indian families and building resilient, thriving tribal communities, Assistant Secretary – Indian Affairs Kevin K. Washburn today announced action the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) has taken to help prevent the further dissolution of American Indian and Alaska Native families through the misapplication of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) of 1978 (Public Law 95-608).
“For too many years, some of Indian Country’s youngest and most vulnerable members have been removed from their families, their cultures, and their identities,” said Assistant Secretary Washburn. “Congress worked hard to address this problem by enacting the Indian Child Welfare Act. Yet, today too many people are unaware of this important law and, unfortunately, there are some that work actively to undermine it. Our updated guidelines for state courts will give families and tribal leaders comfort that the Obama Administration is working hard to provide better clarity so that the courts can carry out Congress’ intent to protect tribal families, preserve tribal communities, and promote tribal continuity now and into the future.”
NASJE MEMBERS: There is a link to a recording of the webcast in the Members Only area (go to the pull-down menu “Resources” > “Member Area”).
Wednesday, March 18, 2015, 12pm Pacific / 1pm Mountain / 2pm Central / 3pm Eastern (1 hour 30 minutes)
One of the most important practices of a judicial branch educator is determining what education your entity needs. What are some of the best practices in the judicial education community?
This upcoming webcast will assist you with developing, administering, and using the results of your needs assessment. It will also be a great opportunity to share with your peers your challenges and successes with different types of needs assessments.
Gordon Zimmerman
After this webcast, you will be able to define needs assessment and its use and application in judicial branch education; list the benefits and drawbacks of various data-gathering approaches and methodologies; and list methods and tools to assist faculty using needs assessment.
Faculty
Professor Gordon Zimmerman, University of Nevada, Reno, and former NASJE President Robin Wosje, Justice Management Institute, are the faculty for the session.
When I accepted the job as Manager of Judicial Education and Programming for the Missouri Office of State Courts Administrator, one of my first actions was to join the National Association of State Judicial Educators (NASJE). As a new member, one of the first inquiries directed my way was whether I wanted a mentor. My immediate reaction was to say, “No thanks, you can assign a mentor to somebody who needs one.” After all, I had been a professor of constitutional law and government for two decades, and served as a mentor for dozens, if not hundreds, of people.
Dr. Anthony Simones, second from left, with Lee Ann Barnhardt, third from left. Photo by Margaret Allen.
Then I remembered that even though I had known success in other arenas, I was new to the field of judicial education. Even if I had been experienced in judicial education, I would have been wise to bear in mind I was new to this specific position and could benefit greatly from regular conversations and consultations with someone in a similar job for some time. Finally, I recalled the wisdom of Horace: people “cease to think when they think they know it all.” I agreed to be assigned a mentor.
It was one of the best decisions I ever made.
I had the extraordinarily good fortune to have Lee Ann Barnhardt of North Dakota assigned as my mentor – a bundle of energy, experience, and enthusiasm. From the beginning, she was a beacon in an environment frequently fraught with uncertainty. Lee Ann taught me about the profession of which I had become a part and what I needed to do to transcend adequacy and enter the sphere of excellence. She revealed what was expected of me. She educated me about the work of those who’d come before me, pointed me in the right direction for information, and explained how I could benefit from my predecessors to avoid reinventing the wheel. She answered my questions and listened to my concerns, serving as an effective sounding board when I needed one most. She told me about her experiences, passed along wisdom she had gained, and spared me from making some of the mistakes she had made. She made suggestions about what I should say and do that impressed and amazed the people at my agency.
Lee Ann was able to be that most valuable of advisers – the objective expert. She was someone who had no stake in the outcomes of the situations I encountered in Missouri and no history with the individuals with whom I was interacting. She was able to look at my situations with complete objectivity and provide input based upon logic and experience. As much as I appreciated her suggestions when I did not know what to do, I more often appreciated Lee Ann when her guidance served to confirm my hunches. If someone as impressive as Lee Ann confirmed my instincts, then I knew I was on the right path. Armed with the confidence I derived from our relationship, I found myself trusting my judgment and making the proper call time after time.
Would I have known success without Lee Ann Barnhardt as my mentor? Perhaps, but I submit
it would have been hit-or-miss, as I would not have had constant access to a source of expertise and experience. I would not have known a welcoming and reassuring voice was always just at the other end of the phone line. I would not have realized that someone who had experienced great success in my field was there for me and cared about my success. Lee Ann made me feel like I was a valuable, and valued, member of an important field. She helped me believe I had made the right choice by changing careers and taking this job.
I can say this. Without Lee Ann, I would not be on the Board of Directors of the National Association of State Judicial Educators in my fourth year as a judicial educator. She taught me how to excel in this profession. She inspired me to push myself and not settle for the back bench that is so comfortable to those who are new to a field. She expressed her confidence in my ability to follow in her footsteps and assume a leadership role. I consider her a good friend as well as a colleague, and one of the greatest thrills of my new career was when she asked me to facilitate a session with her at last year’s conference.
I cannot guarantee you will be assigned a mentor as amazing as Lee Ann Barnhardt. However, I do guarantee you will not have an experience like mine if you choose not to take advantage of NASJE’s mentor program. If your mentorship even approximates the pleasure and value of mine, you will come to regard your decision as rewarding as it is wise.
If you are interested in having a mentor, please contact:
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.
