Institutional Strategies. A New Three-Part Series
Across the United States and Canada, there are
over 45,000 court reporters charged with the task of recording court
room deliberations, legal and medical depositions, and captioning
for television and other media. This is a growing field that requires
dedicated and talented individuals who can quickly and accurately
capture spoken information with stenographic machines. However, recently,
the industry has been facing a serious shortage of court reporters.
According to the National Court Reporter’s Association (NCRA),
court reporting programs have a history of graduating only 10 percent
of their students annually. Students either take much longer than
expected to earn a degree or simply do not graduate at all.
To investigate this problem, the NCRA formed the Future Group, a panel made up of 11 court reporters, captioners, and a state court judge. The Future Group evaluated the future of court reporting profession and what that outlook meant for the association. The group concluded that “the traditional model of recruitment and education [of court reporters] has never experienced a significant success rate.’” They recommended an in-depth evaluation of the existing educational system in order to improve the quality and quantity of its graduates.
In response to the Future Group’s advice, the NCRA formed the Reporter Education Commission in July of 2004 to strengthen the reporter education system and schools. To accomplish its goals, the Commission laid out a timeline of research, evaluation, and planning milestones to span a two-year period. The Commission concentrated on conducting preliminary research by interviewing instructors at both accredited and non-accredited schools. It also issued a request for proposals from outside research consultants to conduct a more in-depth analysis of the educational system. In January of 2005, the Commission hired NRECA Market Research Services and the Educational Policy Institute, under the leadership of Dr. Watson Scott Swail, to conduct field research on stakeholders, including students, school administrators and court reporting firm owners.
Several important findings emanated from this research. First, the Commission found that the profession lacked a sufficient number of schools that offered a court reporting program. Second, schools that did offer a reporting program often did not adequately focus on student needs, such as financial aid, academic counseling, and access to online learning. Many students involved in the research process expressed dissatisfaction with the services and quality of instruction they received at proprietary institutions. One reason for the uneven level of education and services available to students was rooted in the NCRA’s outdated theory approval system. Without the guidance of the association, institutions were left to self-evaluate their programs and assure the integrity of their curriculum and recruiting practices.
The NCRA and Dr. Swail then examined the challenges specific to the reporting and captioning profession, including training and instruction. One difficulty students faced was the highly technical nature of a typical court reporting program. Student persistence also waned as they faced high tuition costs and were forced to take extra time to complete their program of study. “On average, court reporting education programs advertised as two years in length are taking upwards of 38 months to complete,” says Patrick Mangan, Director of Professional Development and Certification for the NCRA. Conversely, institutions were unsure how to target their recruitment effort at the kind of students who would succeed in earning a degree in court reporting. The profession requires a type of intellectual student or professional, and schools need help identifying and enrolling those sorts of people.
Using the research as a foundation for further discussion, Dr. Swail conducted a series of strategic planning for the NCRA which resulted in the development of 16 strategies for program improvement. “What the NCRA needed, more than anything, was someone to come in and direct their discussion,” says Swail. “In essence, I became the navigator for the NCRA. They had the knowledge; they knew what could be done. My job was to coordinate these thoughts and ensure that everyone had a voice in the discussion. Within a very short period of time we were able to get tangible strategies on the table and prioritize what should be done and when.”
The Committee agreed to conduct a series of pilot projects to test education models, provide expanded professional training programs, and redesign the outdated court reporter curriculum. To effectively upgrade institutional resources and instruction, the committee decided that the NCRA had to first make it evident to schools what student departure costs them. Then, through programs like a mentoring boot camp aimed at developing advisors’ mentoring skills and teacher trainings that emphasize the importance of real-life experience in the profession, institutions could expand the services they offer their students.
The strategic planning process has also led NCRA to develop an online qualification test to identify potentially successful students. The association will also streamline the accreditation process for NCRA schools, as well as expand its teacher training program and provide more incentive to become certified instructors.
Dr. Swail was able to get a commitment from the NCRA Commission to carefully evaluate the impact of these strategies in order to determine their effectiveness. “To make something like this work, patience is required on behalf of all stakeholders,” says Swail. “But if they can remain determined to let the implementation process take shape, there should be significant improvement in both the quality of court reporter education and the success of students in the program.” The implementation of these efforts has begun and will continue over the next 18 months.
For more information about the strategic planning process or about the NCRA, please contact Dr. Watson Scott Swail at wswail@educationalpolicy.org or Mr. Patrick Mangan at pmangan@ncrahq.org.
Throughout the series, we look forward to getting feedback from you about your experiences and how they related to our discussion. Feel free to email us at: info@educationalpolicy.org.
EPI SPONSORS
