William Woodland Response to Nancy Alex Comments Regarding PRLS-542 Foundations Course.
Which also Includes Design Ideas for LRM Foundations Team Regarding the Focus of the Course and Content
Date: April 5, 2002
Nancy, if only for your passion but not ignoring your considerable expertise, I'm very appreciative of your comments regarding PRLS 542 -Foundations of Federal Lands Management course design. Jim Snow, USDA Office of General Counsel, shares your passionate view of the history in formation of the federal estate. We've captured Jim's powerpoint program on a rough cut video tape (taped March 5, 2002 at BLM National Training Center). With Jim's concurrence, I want to forward either copies of the power point program, CD or the video tape to the entire PRLS 542 team.Long range intentions are to amplify Jim Snow's message through multiple medium and events, including as appendix material for PRLS 542 course. Nancy's comments appear to weave similar events into the actual body of the course. As a parallel example to Nancy's comments, Jim Snow draws attention to the federal government using land, particularly the railroad
grants, to develop this country. Jim specifically points out, starting with Section 16 of the rectangular survey for schools, how each territory upon reaching statehood status, was able to secure increasing amounts of the federal estate. He has many historical photos of early survey efforts. Something that you don't mention in your comments are the more obscure Congressional figures (Hough, Taylor, etc.) that played major roles
at critical junctures, but failed to get the splash that Thomas Jefferson was able to secure.
One caution that I'd like to share with the entire team... While there is no doubt that this subject could easily warrant a "Jim Burns" style mini series and perhaps justify an entire curriculum: PRLS 542 is specifically focused on the development of a one (1) academic credit course. We must clearly understand that this course is intended as an introductory course. In a more gross sense, PRLS 542 is positioned as a "teaser" to both encourage further detailed study of federal lands issues in subsequent courses and also familiarize the student to learning through a digitally supported medium. So again Nancy, your suggestions to enliven the course through splashy visuals is on target. We've collectively come to a similar conclusion that this course is too rich in content to be completed by May. We've consulted with the George Mason University course design team to continue development of the course through this summer. However, as the two graduate students on the design team (Hasan Altablib and Denis
Richtarski, working under Dr Kevin Clarks guidance) are accountable for completing course design by mid May: the design team has been instructed to not only design the course framework, but also insert what appropriate content we can supply in the interim. I encourage the subject matter experts (content folks) to recognize the intense academic pressures and relatively shorter time frames Hasan and Denis labor under.
With absolutely no intention of encouraging "mission creep", long range concept is to expand the content of this course to include snippets from all major federal land managing agencies. With apologies for the dramatics in using the allegory of a tree; one might cast the roots to comprise aboriginal claims, various European colonization efforts, federalist papers; the trunk as the US Constitution and Bill of Rights; the War Department and GLO as major branches; followed by further branches of various departments and federal agencies in chronological order of development. Some branches would stub off, such as the US Grazing Service, but BLM would sprout from this stub. Even the relatively younger land managing agencies (US F&WS without an implemented organic act and the Bureau of Reclamation) have a story to tell. What Nancy's comments emphasize is the relationship and historical foundation of the GLO and the critical foundations of survey. To borrow someone else's sage perspective,
"you can't manage what you don't own (survey)". However, for the immediate focus of this course and it's current heavy imbalance toward the Forest Service, the FS story cannot be told without the earlier GLO and parallel offshoots of BLM. Under the Service First concept (commingled land management by BLM and FS), I suggest focusing this course primarily on BLM and FS, with mention of the other federal land managing agencies to facilitate the contextual understanding (and potential placemarkers for later course design/development). Both for design purposes and content outline, there has to be an ending point that sets the limits of this one credit course. (Hasan/Denis, hopefully above statements are simply a reiteration that sharpens the overall objectives rather than drive you crazy with repeated design starts)
While my comments above are simply one person's opinions, I do want to reiterate my perception of roles. Ron Erickson is both a subject matter expert and the assigned lead in vetting content for this course. Ron, in consultation with the other subject matter experts, must make the final cuts to whittle course content into a manageable package, intended as an introductory course. Ron is the point source contact with the GMU design team. Nancy Alex (for BLM) and Bob Dennee (for FS) are subject matter
experts, contributing both their considerable experience, knowledge and materials. Jim Snow, USDA Office of General Counsel , because he does not work directly for a land managing agency (although he may be more FS green of BLM brown than agency employees at times) is viewed as an expert consultant who graciously shares what ever time and effort he can spare.Although we've invited input from DOI Solicitor's Office, Ray Brady (Group Leader, BLM) has expressed full confidence in Jim Snow's skill at telling the federal land story. Nancy too, has a compelling story that we expect will further enrich this course. Hasan and Denis, with above individuals supplying content material, are to use their instructional design skills in fashioning a course that both encourages further study and amplifies the learning moment through technological devices.
I encourage similar dialogue amongst all of us, but at the same time implore all of us to stay focused on a mid May conclusion for this current effort.