Curriculum Development
One can only imagine the amount of time invested in curriculum development. With only nine months until the first class was scheduled, work got serious. According to Lawson Veasey there was a fundamental belief shared by the group that drove the direction of the curriculum: industrial development was outdated and economic development was too narrow and too sophisticated for communities that had no idea about systems theory, organizational development and other community development processes. As a result of this belief the development of curriculum was based on information from several fields including public administration, planning, economics, rural sociology, and other disciplines, and created by a diverse group of organizations from several states.
Many contributed input including members of the CDS board—the Missouri Community Betterment Conference; state development departments in Arkansas, Missouri, Kansas, and Iowa; various planning and development district representatives from across the nation; University of Arkansas at Fayetteville, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, and the University of Missouri; Lincoln University Extension Center; and AP&L, Arkla, and Southwestern Bell. The state of Missouri was particularly influential because it had the only community development master’s program in the nation at the time, a particularly strong community betterment program, and a very robust Cooperative Extension Service program. Key individuals from Missouri—lovingly known as the Missouri Mafia—included Jerry Wade, Doris and Don Littrell, and Mark Peterson who served as principal faculty in the first years.
During 1986 development of Year I curriculum was the major concern for the committee, with secondary consideration given to future development of Years II and III. Similar to just-in-time inventory, just-in-time planning was alive and well!
Year I curriculum was designed to introduce students to the principles of community development, involve them in problem solving situations consistent with what they would encounter in their real communities, and to guide them in preparing an overall community development plan for a specific geographic area. Students would live and work in the imaginary “State of Franklin” and interact with “Governor Jerry Wade” as the setting for all of their study. The sessions were designed to be highly interactive and students were introduced to Wade’s “leaky bucket” theory, Terri Frank’s decision-making model, and Mark Peterson’s principles and strategic planning. The week would culminate with group presentations of the proposed development plan.
The State of Franklin had been written by Don Littrell, Edge Wade and Judy Linneman for use by the USDA Rural Development Agency and modified for use at CDI. The Franklin format forced people to work together and to focus on group process as much as the actual content of the development plan.
Year II curriculum was built around strategic planning and would continue to be set in the State of Franklin, building upon the overall community development plan completed at the conclusion of Year I. Specific presentations would include organizing for development and gaining community support, conducting community surveys and gathering data, master planning and implementation, financing, tourism and recreation, education and welfare, and environmental and zoning issues. As student groups developed their plans, Governor Wade and other faculty provided stumbling blocks to make the experience more realistic. Year II would also conclude with group presentations on their strategic plans and implementation strategies.
Year III was drafted but not fleshed out during this early planning period. The intent for the final year was for students to develop master, strategic and implementation plans for a project from their real-life employer using all of the principles and techniques learned during the CDI experience. Original planning called for institute faculty to be assigned to each student to oversee and assist in the development of these plans, but this idea was scrapped as Year III curriculum was finalized.
The use of class directors from the real world to keep the training practitioner-oriented was one of the strengths of the design of CDI. It was intended that the relationships formed among students, faculty and class directors would be ongoing. It was hoped that CDI would offer seminars on a regional and national basis and plans were discussed about the possibility of a CDI Center where research, archives and data collection could be accomplished. Those early goals and aspirations were not all accomplished, but they fueled the drive for excellence and for high expectations.
