The Speech Advisory Committee meeting will be held at Sioux Falls O'Gorman High School on April 23 and 24. The whole agenda is here.
The debate portion includes reviewing "state tournament contest language" and modifying it "for consistency with Joy of Tournaments." I can't speak for the other speech advisory committee representatives of the debate community, but the current handbook seems to be closer to a biology textbook based on alchemy than a usable tournament manual.
I have no idea how the three of us can get the rules synchronized with a computer program on a single Saturday morning. It took a long discussion at a regular advisory committee meeting and a four or five hour summer meeting to develop the current schedule. The language and issues here will be far more complicated.
Therefore, I intend to propose the appointment of a committee of coaches who meet either face to face or online and go through and rework the tournament manual to make it consistent with the computer program That committee should produce a final draft prior to August 1. The proposed changes can get sent out to coaches then. Most coaches are at Speech Convention where the proposal can be discussed face to face. A final version can then be sent out for a vote before the 2011 State Tournament.
The agenda also includes revisiting "the policies regarding the use of computers in debate rounds and in extemp draw room." I don't know if the coaching community has come to a consensus on this issue, and I don't want to cast a vote out of ignorance. I believe that other members of the committee also want to cast an informed vote, so please let us know your opinions.
Although, the agenda lists cell phones as a "retrieval" issue, it seems as if cell phones have been a "disruption" issue. I suspect that a proposal to disqualify a competitor whose cell phone goes off. Please let one of us know your views.
As I said at student congress, I will not be offering any proposals about shortening the debate season, so that discussion should be brief. That being said, it seems imperative for the community to come to a consensus on this issue.
The committee will apparently "explore changing the debate season policy" about starting dates and out of season travel. Once again, I know of no existing consensus on this issue. Please let one of the speech advisory committee members know your opinions. I would love to see a discussion in the comments, but emails will work as well.
Finally, I suspect that there will be a discussion about establishing qualifications for judges who judge the state tournament. At the past tournament, a brief discussion resulted in a suggestion about using nats prep to produce a training video.
Please let one of the speech advisory committee members know your opinions about these issues or other issues that need to be discussed under the all-encompassing "other topics" agenda item by making comments here or sending us emails.
My goal at this meeting is to avoid doing harm through either inaction or ill conceived action. The help of the South Dakota debate community will be appreciated
8 comments:
Leo,
I think the manual definately needs to be updated to fit more in line with the majority of the tournaments. I get that there needs to be more rules and regulations down because it is such an intense tournament, but at the same time, it is very much like a textbook.
As for judges, I like the idea of a training video, but I think maybe someone who is a coach needs to be in charge of getting judges. Ken just isn't around to know who the judges are, and if a coach was put in charge of it, I think they would be able to find those judges.
Hi Leo,
Are there specifics in the manual that will be addressed? I know there was some questions about scheduling the PF semi-final round. It would be good to clarify the language regarding shuffling the cards between columns to avoid teams hitting each other a second time before the final round. (page 44, Section 4, c and d.)
Regarding the debate season and Sunday travel, Harrisburg would like to participate in out-of-season-during-the-school year competitions that are scheduled on Sundays. I have no desire to compete in-state on a Sunday, and personally have no need to compete on a Sunday in-season. Others may wish to compete on Sundays throughout the year, and I would support that. A change in policy would leave control to the specific district as to what they wish to allow. As for the "club team" proposal from Mr. Pickering, I agree with all except the prohibition on contact with the coaching staff. In discussing this with my AD, athletics are allowed 4 out-of-season contacts with their teams. I do not see this as being allowed in the proposal. With some of our "rewards" for having a great season occurring out-of-season for our students, it seems contradictory to ban coaches traveling to a tournament with their teams, regardless of who is paying for the tournament and travel.
I'm going to echo most of what Travis and Kip said about the manual. The state tournament is just so far removed from what we do every weekend in terms of how it is scheduled, paired, and judged. Although different isn't necessarily worse, the differences seem to come from an antiquated manual and a lack of comprehensive reform to the system the past 20 or so years. I would contend the district tournaments are much more intense and the method for scheduling is much more intricate than state and yet quals manages to run relatively smoothly in both districts because people know the system and know that it is being done properly and fairly.
As far as judges go, I agree with Travis. Ken has no tangible connection to debate anymore and letting him find judges for the state tournament just leads to more of the disconnect mentioned above. Having a coach (or 2, one for LD and one for policy) in charge of recruiting and vetting judges SHOULD eliminate some of the problems. I dont like the idea of an instructional video only because I fear people will assume that it is a cure-all and that once a previously inexperienced individual watches this video, they will be capable and qualified to judge rounds at the state tournament. If it really is that easy to teach debate, we should just use a short instructional vidoe for novices and go from there. Also, at Silver Bowl next year, we will be requiring ALL judges to fill out the judge forms that you must fill out before NFL nationals. We feel this is a good policy for 2 reasons. First, it will allow the tournament staff to briefly glance over the judge sheets to make sure any judges they dont recognize offhand have credentials and are qualified. Second, it gives students and coaches alike a clear picture of what their judges want to hear. I think i speak for most when I say the frustration in judges doesn't come from a certain "type" of judge (Liberal, Conservative, stock, policymaker, etc) but instead of a lack of knowledge of what each judge REALLY wants/can handle. If this were something all the invitational tournaments would support we could have a running judge book that might be updated before the qualifying tournaments to reflect number of rounds judged during a particular season. This would elimnate the confusion and attempts to hurriedly explain what "Stock Issues" means each and every round.
The idea of making debate a club activity during the off-season is new to me but is certainly one i support as long as a few things happen.
First, we need to still be able to travel in-season. I would agree that Sunday competition isn't necessary in-season and certainly would never be advantageous at a SD tournament the way we run them now. However, allowing for travel and competition out of season doesn't mean that we shouldnt be able to compete at the out of state tournaments that are close to SD while the SD season is going.
Second, like Kip said, the ban on coach contact wouldn't make much sense in a debate setting. Since most of the out of season tournaments that SD schools would be attending are national, end of year tournaments that you must qualify to attend, disallowing a coach when they helped get the student(s) there in the first place doesn't make much sense to me. Kip mentioned the rules regarding athletics and their 4 out of season coach contacts but I don't think this really applies here. Remember, there is no football or tennis class. A lot of coaches are still teaching their kids in a specific class for debate, are you supposed to teach history in deabte class to avoid coaching out of season or how would that work? Also, the debate season ends before stucon starts under the current schedule meaning any after school or state stucons you attended with your students would count against your out of season contacts.
As a coach on a program that travels quite a bit and would like to travel more I can say it's incredibly fair to put the transportation and all other costs on the teams as opposed to the schools . I think this proposal allows schools and districts the autonomy to pick which kind of program they can run at their school without restricting options or competitivness for any other programs in the state or damaging in state competition.
I agree Leo. I think we should begin by getting rid of the scenarios (if 13 left, if 16 left).
Travis: I agree. I think that we will need to possibly but clear expectations of what is expected of judges that each school brings.
Kip: The Sunday thing has been a huge issue that many feel as if we are beating are heads against the wall.
My concern is also with how to get the cleanest pairings in the outrounds while not allowing for appearance of manipulation of the round.
As for the computers, I think every knows I am for allowing them on the same level as they are allowed for NFL districts and at the NFL tournaments.
I looked into the cell phone issue and don't want wording of if anyone's phone should happen to go off, they will be disqualified. That is not the same as using it. No other state has that as a rule that I am aware of at this time.
On the judges side of things, I know that I did a lot of trying to talk to people about coming to judge for State. I don't think that we had a huge problem with the hired judges that were used. I think the biggest problem occured with some of the judges that schools brought with them.
That is not something that Ken or the committee can control if the school puts them down as qualified. We encourage that the judges have at least 8 rounds on the topic at the JV or higher level. If Travis hires Dustin Olson, for example, as his policy judge then what should the committee do? Right now the committee vets every judge that the state hires. Most of the time, if they fit the requirements of rounds/experience, we have no choice but to hire them regardless of paradigm due to lack of judges. I would have no problem with the forms to eliminate some confusion. I know that we used to have those of the State hired judges when the state hired 30-40 judges. I don't think it will solve it 100% (but that is not possible) since some judges will say they are a "7" on speed when their "7" is Matt's "4," but I think that is a step in the right directions and should include school hired judges. I know most of the state hired judges by now, but the assistants are a bit fuzzy at times.
Computer use - I think that allowing computers in round is something that could be beneficial. It is the way that NFL itself is going. It may also help decrease the number of tubs. We allow the use at Silver Bowl and there were no complaints that I heard of at the Rushmore Qualifier. In the extemp prep, it could be helpful, but this becomes a lot harder to police, especially with the problem of pre-written speeches. The rule in the NFL manual about protests of computer use is that the committee can take the laptop and search all files on the computer. This would be a necessary rule as well.
Start dates/club - I think that there should be a change to allow travel before and after the season. Debate is a year round activity. Students go to camps and we want to be able to work with them. Especially with school starting earlier, there is the potential for some people to be ready to try themselves out earlier. Also, for teams and groups that have qualified to Nationals, there is always the possibility of practice rounds with teams from other states as means of getting ready.
State Judges - There needs to be a change. Travis may have the right idea that a coach could round up judges. At the same time, the current criteria are not enough. Simply being put into a varsity round, I do not think, suddenly qualifies a person to judge at state. This would only work if each tournament actually had the time to observe and monitor a judge’s ballots. I know with Silver Bowl I get a lot of requests to put some person into VLD or VPol simply to give them rounds. These may be people who have done little to no judging all year and now they suddenly get rounds and are qualified to judge at State? I know there is a struggle to find enough judges, but at some point there has to be a standard of quality. Every other activity has some form of judge/referee certification. Now I know that for many people, their experience is enough. But at the same time, if I have a debater who barely makes into Varsity their last year and I did not have a lot of confidence in their abilities; I would not be using that person later to judge varsity debate. Being a coach is not always enough either. In my first year of coaching, I would say that I was not at all ready to be judging a policy round at the Varsity level of state.
I think this issue of judge use is something that we as a state need to consider in our own tournaments. At some point, if we want students to improve, we need to give them judges that will actually be able to help them. As a coach I am frustrated when my students get judges in Varsity LD or Varsity/JV policy that only did a year of policy as novices and then did Public Forum for the rest of their career. I know they are smart students, but if they never experienced the more technical and advanced theories of debate, then how can they properly judge a round at that level? The same happens to PFO and LD. Policy debaters are put into the back of these rounds and they are not willing to be more open minded in their judging philosophies. Again, I know we are limited with judges many times, but at some point we have to be willing to hold a consistent standard.
If anyone has a concern about a specific judge at the state tournament as being unqualified/unprofessional that was hired by the state, please send a private e-mail to Leo, Scott, or myself and list your concerns. This helps the committee determine if they should be asked to judge the next year. Thanks everyone.
Leo this is a great idea. There have been a lot of good issues ideas to review.
Post a Comment