back to search...

NASJE Curriculum Design - Governance Entry Level - Content Outline

1.1.1.1 Content Outline (20pg/.1MB)

National Association of State Judicial Educators (NASJE)

Notes:
Governance Entry Level Content Outline

Description:

1.1.1.4 Educational Content:
(This is an outline of content to be included in courses developed from this curriculum design.  Each area of content is annotated with the bracketed number of the learning objective it supports. The information in parentheses after key headings of the outline provides faculty with the overarching question the heading is designed to address.)

• Governance (what is it and what are relevant types of governance in the judicial branch)
• Definition – governance is a set of arrangements that bring order to a group of people and to their work through clearly defined roles for making decisions, determining and managing processes and procedures, setting standards for activities, performance, and products or services, as well as developing a means for obtaining and maintaining needed resources and funding
• Organizational, institutional, or administrative governance (hereafter referenced as administrative governance) [1] (what are the characteristics of administrative governance) – generally governance that is concerned with how a specific organization operates (such as an administrative office of the courts, a local court, a university, or an association); generally administrative governance has broad areas of responsibility, may have stakeholder involvement (such as a board or executive, advisory, or steering committee), but places responsibility for the specific organization on employed individuals (such as an administrator, a president, or a dean); representatives of administrative governance exercise line control in the organization; typical characteristics include:
• Authority – over action and over enabling others to act
• Hierarchy – established levels of decision-making
• Organization-centric model – internal and system based
• Stability and sustainability over time – slow to change
• Predetermined structures – typical organizational components
• Stakeholder-based governance [2] (what are the characteristics of stakeholder-based governance) – generally governance that is concerned with what an organization produces and its acceptability and relevance to stakeholders or recipients; utilizes volunteers who accept certain levels of responsibility; representatives of stakeholder-based governance do not have line control over the organization’s employees, but exercise strong influence or some degree of control over certain products and services; typical characteristics include:
• Credibility – trust and buy-in from stakeholders for action taken through collaborative efforts
• Network – collective and shared decision-making
• Recipient-centric model – product and service based
• Innovative and responsive – changes with circumstances
• Variable structures – groups evolve over time in number, membership, and responsibilities
• Dynamics of Blended Governance in Judicial Branch Education [1] [2] [7] (what are the specific relationships for judicial branch education) [see 1.1.2.1 One Model of Judicial Branch Education Governance, pg. 33 and 1.1.2.2 Sources of Governance for Judicial Branch Education, pg. 35] [also see curriculum designs Leadership Potential and Leadership in Action]
• Dynamics of administrative governance – administrative entities generally predate judicial branch education activities, have broad and varied areas of responsibility, and employ established formal organizational structures
• Relationship to judicial branch education
• Judicial branch education is generally only one of many activities overseen by an administrative governance entity
• Judicial branch education personnel are generally employed by the administrative governance entity
• Resources for judicial branch education generally come from administrative governance entities, including funding, human resources services (job classification, salary, recruitment, performance management), and other administrative services
• Various entities that exercise administrative governance and may oversee judicial branch education in a broad or a defined manner
• Supreme courts – in some circumstances a supreme court is responsible for judicial branch education; generally the clerk of the court or an administrator is charged with managing education
• Administrative offices of the courts – in many states the administrative office of the courts is responsible for judicial branch education; education is one of several departments or divisions of an administrative office; generally a director or manager is charged with overseeing education
• Universities – in some circumstances a university is responsible for judicial branch education; a single stand-alone unit or one of several schools or colleges in the university oversees education
• Associations – many court-related associations are responsible for judicial branch education; while a few are completely volunteer organizations, and thus do not exercise administrative governance, many have an executive director who is responsible for overseeing education
• Local courts – many local courts are responsible for judicial branch education in their respective jurisdictions; generally a court administrator or manager is responsible for overseeing education
• Independent providers – some organizations, especially on the national level, have judicial branch education as part of their mission (e.g., The National Judicial College, the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, National Center for State Courts, and the Federal Judicial Center)
• Dynamics of stakeholder-based governance for judicial branch education – in many cases, volunteer stakeholder groups began offering judicial branch education before the formation of a department and inclusion of judicial branch education personnel; in other cases, stakeholder-based governance groups are the result of a department’s outreach efforts to include and involve learners and other stakeholders in the development and delivery of education
• Relationship to judicial branch education
• Judicial branch education is the focus of certain stakeholder-based governance entities in the judicial branch (typically in the form of boards, advisory committees, program or course committees etc.)
• These entities involve volunteers contributing time and expertise for a wide range of activities
• Policy-oriented activities, such as developing, recommending, or approving education standards (e.g., educational requirements for target audiences, requirements for faculty service, use of curriculum, program, and/or course development models)
• Task-oriented activities, such as assisting in assessing the educational needs of certain target audiences, determining course content, selecting faculty
• Judicial branch education personnel support stakeholder-based governance entities
• Supporting stakeholder-based group operation
• Partnering and collaborating with volunteer leaders to form stakeholder-based governance entities
• Providing services to stakeholder groups including staffing, clerical work, logistical arrangements for meetings, etc.
• Supporting the products of stakeholder-based governance entities
• Implementing standards and/or policies adopted by stakeholder groups
• Overseeing and coordinating programs, working with faculty to develop and deliver courses etc.
• Various levels of stakeholder-based governance entities in judicial branch education [3] [see 1.1.2.1 One Model of Judicial Branch Education Governance, pg. 33] – in some situations, one group of stakeholders may be responsible for multiple levels of governance; in other situations there is a hierarchy of stakeholder groups
• Policy level – generally a long-term group with rotating membership and wide representation; assists judicial branch education efforts through adopting educational policies or standards; may make recommendations to administrative governance entity and/or a higher level stakeholder entity that is charged with final decisions for action that significantly affect the judicial branch; often has authority to create other stakeholder groups for specific education purposes; examples of policy level groups could include Committee on Judicial Branch Education and Training, Judicial Branch Education Governing Committee, or Judicial Branch Education Policy Board
• Advisory level – generally a long-term group(s); may represent a significant learner population (e.g., interests and needs of judges or specific groups of judges (such as juvenile court judges), court personnel or a significant group of court personnel (such as elected court clerks), small or large courts, or a specific area that spans target audiences and topics (such as fairness); may recommendations to higher policy-level groups, develop curriculum for specific target audience, or advise planning committees on content; examples could include Court Clerk Advisory Committee, Committee on Technology, or Council on Fairness
• Planning level – often short-term groups to plan a specific program or course
• Program planning – a group tasked with planning an event, such as a conference or online series; components of a program may include scope of offerings (how many courses and the content areas), delivery mechanism(s), etc.; examples of program planning groups could include New Judge Orientation Planning Committee, Judicial Conference Planning Committee, or Manager and Supervisor Certification Planning Committee
• Course planning – a short-term group tasked with planning a specific course or series of courses; components of a course may include decisions on learning objectives, decisions on topics and subtopics, faculty recommendations or selection, etc.; examples could include Legislative Update Course Committee, Ethics Education Course Committee, and Committee on Public Trust and Confidence Course
• Task forces or work groups – short-term groups that may meet temporarily to perform a certain task (such as develop a partnership between judicial branch education and local universities), study and report on a specific educational need (such as electronic delivery of certain content), or other limited activity (such as study and recommend new sources of funding for education); examples could include Judicial Branch Education Partnership Committee, Task Force on Electronic Education Opportunities, Educational Funding Workgroup
• Faculty – individuals tasked with developing and delivering content; although not strictly part of stakeholder-based governance, faculty may have an expectation of control over courses, which is generally the responsibility of stakeholder course planning committees and judicial branch educators and/or educators and faculty working in partnership
• Dynamics of interaction among various groups concerned with judicial branch education [4] [5] (how do these entities and individuals interface)
• Individuals involved in administrative governance entities:
• May see judicial branch education as a service provided by the organization
• May see stakeholder involvement as necessary, but not a controlling factor
• May call upon judicial branch education to intervene and offer specific courses to help solve various problems that arise in the courts
• Individuals, generally volunteers, involved in stakeholder-based governance entities:
• May have a sense of proprietorship of judicial branch education, especially if some form of stakeholder groups predates formation of a judicial branch education department
• May see the administrative governance entity as necessary for resources and support but not relevant with regard to the types of programs and courses offered, the specifics of course content, faculty selection, and other related matters
• Judicial branch educators
• Fulfill a variety of roles, have a variety of responsibilities, and need a variety of skills and abilities [see 1.1.2.3 Judicial Branch Educator Roles, pg. 38]
• Generally have allegiance to and depend on both forms of governance [see 1.1.2.4 Blended Governance and Judicial Branch Educators, pg. 40)
• May need to balance conflicting interests between these two types of governance [see 1.1.2.5 The Balancing Act 1, pgs. 42 and 43]
• Need to balance sound educational practice with regard to both types of governance [see 1.1.2.5 The Balancing Act 2, pgs. 42 and 44]
• Need to employ a variety of skills and abilities [see 1.1.2.3 Judicial Branch Educator Roles, pg. 38]
• For both administrative and stakeholder-based governance entities, judicial branch educators need:
• Skill in dealing with a variety of individuals at different levels of responsibility in the administrative organization and the stakeholder-based entity
• Ability to balance allegiance to two types and sources of governance
• Ability to listen to and respect the differing needs and perspectives of both types of governance  
• Ability to maintain confidentiality, especially when dealing with differences in opinion between individuals in administrative and those in stakeholder-based governance
• Ability to balance sound educational practices and needs and wants of both types of governance
• For administrative governance entities and individuals
• Ability to differentiate between problems that may be resolved through education and those that represent administrative issues, problems, or shortcomings that require organizational intervention
• Ability to keep personal opinions and references to individuals and groups in stakeholder-based governance entities at a professional, nonjudgmental level
• A strictly professional position avoids creating undue, unnecessary, or biased opinions of stakeholders in the minds of administrators
• A nonjudgmental position with regard to stakeholders enables judicial branch educators to maintain a respectful balance of allegiance between both types of governance
• Ability to help fulfill and maintain the administrative governance entity’s mission and/or strategic plan
• For stakeholder-based governance entities and individuals, judicial branch educators need:
• Ability to keep personal opinions and references to individuals and groups in administrative governance entities at a professional, nonjudgmental level
• Because judicial branch educators work more directly with stakeholders on a day-to-day basis, they can sometimes more readily identify with stakeholders than with administrative governance, the employer
• Judicial branch educators need to remember that they represent their employer to stakeholders
• Because stakeholders may have limited contact with and knowledge of the administrative organization, judicial branch educators need to exercise caution when discussing their employer and avoid presenting a negative image of individuals, groups, or the organization
• Ability to maintain a professional relationship with stakeholder volunteers [see 1.1.2.5 The Balancing Act 3, pgs 42 and 45]
• Close personal relationships with stakeholders may be problematic if issues arise with the stakeholder-based entity
• Maintaining a professional relationship helps avoid any perceptions of favoritism by other stakeholders and/or by individuals in the administrative governance entity
• Close personal relationships may lead to expectations by stakeholders that are not appropriate or sustainable by judicial branch educators
• Judicial branch educators need to provide professional support for stakeholders with regard to development and delivery of education, but consider consequences carefully before providing personal support for an individual stakeholder(s) involved in governance
• Ability to create and/or maintain an effective and efficient system of stakeholder-based governance groups
• Developing or Enhancing Stakeholder-Based Governance for Judicial Branch Education [6] [7](what are some considerations for effective stakeholder-based governance) – although the form and function of stakeholder-based governance may differ from one situation to another, some basic considerations for effective organization and operation may include:
• Defining roles and responsibilities – clearly defining stakeholder-based governance entities ensures effectiveness and efficiency; this may be a function of the administrative governance entity or of the judicial branch education department’s manager; roles and responsibilities need to address groups and individuals, including:
• Charter for each stakeholder group to ensure clarity of scope and relevant limitations, including:
• Mission or purpose statement for each group – rationale for existence of each group
• Scope and parameters of activity and expectations for each group, such as:
• Making decisions – what is the level of decision making for each group; what types of decisions should be referred to other groups or people
• Advising – what kinds of information is each group expected to provide; to which group or individual is the advisory information given; what is the expected mode of communication (written report, personal appearance of a representative, etc.)
• Recommending – what types of recommendations are anticipated from each group; which group or individual should receive the recommendation; what is the expected mode of communication
• Studying and/or informing – what specifically is a group expected to provide and to whom
• Life span for each group – to ensure understanding of the time-bound scope of the group; some life span definitions may include ongoing or long term, project based, time limited, or task limited
• Relationships to judicial branch education personnel – to ensure appropriate levels of interdependency, mutual respect, and appropriate expectations [see 1.1.2.6 Generalized Relationships with Stakeholder-Based Governance, pg. 46]
• Types of relationships – relationships may be based on the design of stakeholder-based governance structure, on individuals involved (stakeholders or individual judicial branch educators), or the organizational level of the judicial branch educator; the type of relationship between stakeholders and judicial branch educators may evolve from one type to another based on many variables; there is no right or wrong type of relationship, but in order to be effective, judicial branch educators need to understand the possibilities and if necessary strive for a desired type (for example, it might be desirable for stakeholders to see all judicial branch educators as educational experts and partners, regardless of their position)
• Partnership – full and open communication, joint planning, joint decision making between stakeholders and judicial branch educators; judicial branch educators are viewed as educational experts and provide substantial guidance to stakeholder-based governance entities; stakeholders are viewed as vital to the success and effectiveness of judicial branch education
• Cooperation – close working relationship, but one group feels it has the main responsibility and is in a leadership position; the other group is in a supportive role, providing recommendations and making decisions only in limited situations
• Superior/Inferior – stakeholders feel they are decision makers and the prime source of judicial branch education; judicial branch educators assist stakeholder groups, carry out directives, provide logistic and administrative services for programs and courses
• Types of activity generally involving stakeholder groups and judicial branch education personnel; these descriptions may differ depending on the type of relationships that develop between stakeholder groups and judicial branch educators (see above)
• Policy level – deciding on adoption and use of educational models or processes; appointing members to stakeholder groups for various purposes; deciding whether to have educational requirements
• Advisory level – recommending how to meet the needs of particular target audiences, assessing learner group needs, developing curricula, advising on certain content areas
• Program or course planning level
• Program planning – deciding on delivery mechanism, program components, single or multiple courses, registration strategies, etc.
• Course planning – deciding on learning objectives, content [see Instructional Design: The Backbone of Effective Education for details], and faculty
• Types of activity generally reserved for judicial branch education personnel
• Implementing educational processes and models
• Consulting with faculty on educational issues, such as instructional design processes and teaching skills
• Selecting and contracting sites for educational activities
• Contracting with outside faculty
• Using departmental resources (personnel and funding)
• Deciding on evaluation processes and procedures
• Overseeing registration, logistics, and other support functions
• Statement outlining relationships among stakeholder groups – to ensure efficiency, clarify lines of communication, and prevent misunderstandings
• If stakeholder groups are interrelated they may have:
• A permanent hierarchy in which one group has oversight responsibility and final decision-making authority
• A temporary hierarchy in which a group creates a subgroup for a specific need
• A network in which groups are equal but interdependent with regard to certain processes and procedures
• If stakeholder groups are not interrelated, each may act independently of others
• Defining stakeholder-based group membership – clearly defining membership ensures adequate representation, balanced perspectives, clarity of terms and selection processes, and more
• Statement of desirable or required representation – to ensure inclusion of all relevant perspectives
• Groups that may be represented to ensure inclusion of diverse and relevant perspectives
• Courts
• Judges
• Court personnel
• Administrative organization, if appropriate
• Justice partners, such as prosecutors, defense attorneys, and treatment providers
• Content experts, if appropriate
• Public, if appropriate
• Statement of desirable diversity – to ensure fairness and balanced perspectives
• Ethnic and racial diversity
• Geographic diversity
• Gender diversity
• Age diversity
• Large and small court representation
• Urban and rural court representation
• Supporters and doubters
• Selection processes (application, invitation, volunteer, or appointment) terms and replacement processes – to ensure fairness and efficiency; consider staggered multi-year terms for members to assist with institutional memory and understanding of long-term projects; consider documenting policies on whether a stakeholder’s term may be extended (is it possible, is it advisable, what are the relevant circumstances, how long may a term be extended) or whether stakeholders may return to a group for another term (how long between terms, how many terms may eventually be served, can a stakeholder return to a term in a leadership position)
• Roles and expectations of members – to explain the scope of responsibility for each individual
• Orientation processes – to ensure ongoing, consistent explanation of group purpose, roles of members, history of group, and pending decisions; consider a new member manual or series of electronic documents to provide a record of relevant information to be passed along to new members
• Processes for recognition (for special work, at end of term, etc.) – to avoid perceptions of favoritism and to prevent oversight of service provided
• Defining stakeholder leadership – clearly defining leadership ensures continuity, fairness, and timely and predictable turnover
• Selection processes (appointment or election process, seniority, etc.) – to ensure transparency and fairness
• Roles and responsibilities – to ensure understanding of expectations and limitations of leaders
• Term length and replacement processes – to ensure consistency and fairness; frequent and/or haphazard turnover may create significant changes in focus
• Formal succession planning process – to maintain institutional memory and contribute to follow through for long-term projects
• Processes for recognition (for service provided, projects completed, etc.) – to ensure fairness
• Considering an executive committee – if the stakeholder group is large or dispersed and bringing everyone together (face-to-face or electronically) is difficult, a smaller group empowered to act on behalf of the larger group may be useful
• Benefits – may be more accessible on short notice; may make decisions more rapidly; may be able to reach compromise more easily
• Drawbacks – difficult to ensure that all perspectives are represented in a small group; larger group may feel they are being excluded and are only to “rubber stamp” decisions
• Considerations – document the scope of the small group’s authority, document action, ensure full reporting to the larger stakeholder group
• Planning and conducting meetings – stakeholder-based governance is often developed and implemented through meetings; meetings are a forum for collective action and represent overt collaboration to those in the group and to others; careful planning and management ensures effectiveness, efficiency, openness, and clarity [see 1.1.2.7 Meetings, Meetings, Meetings, pg. 48]; stakeholder leadership may have responsibility for planning and conducting meetings or the responsibility may be shared with judicial branch educators; local organizations may have guidelines on conducting meetings; the following may be helpful in creating or enhancing local guidelines
• Role definition – an important component of effective meetings is clarity of roles
• Chair – generally the chair of the specific committee; responsible for developing (or collaborating with the educator) the agenda and ensuring adherence to agenda items and time; oversees the meeting, including calling meeting to order, introducing and obtaining agreement on agenda, introducing agenda items and any presenters, seeking clarification as necessary, checking group for consensus or disagreement, participating in discussions but avoiding using position to influence the outcome, determining when to conclude discussion and/or take a vote, and adjourning meeting
• Judicial branch educator – may serve in many ways as agreed with committee chair and may include serving in leadership, facilitator, and/or supportive roles; generally assists the chair in conducting the meeting, facilitating discussion, reading the reactions of members, and summarizing status; often handles meeting logistics (site, seating, materials, presentation equipment, etc.); may involve others from the judicial branch education department; may make suggestions if the committee is stymied or stalled or off track; may offer ideas if credibility is established with the committee and chair; focuses on helping committee members achieve meeting goal; may employ preventative measures to minimize problems and difficulties if necessary
• Recorder – may be a member of the judicial branch education department or a member of the committee; responsible for documenting the meeting, and preparing and disseminating the minutes
• Committee members – attend regularly, offer ideas and build on ideas of others, vote as necessary, and participate in discussions
• Frequency of meetings – part of the energy in groups, the degree of member bonding, and group momentum comes from meeting frequently
• Expectations or requirements for sche