Embedded Files
DIVISIONS
Many directors have expressed concerns over the current divisions as they exist in the current UMEA circuit. While there may be no "100% perfect solution for all" method of organization, the general sentiment is such that the current system is designed to benefit larger ensembles.
Some potential conflicts pointed out by many include:
Dividing strictly by Band Size may lead to directors intentionally limiting enrollment/participation to compete in a lower division.
Dividing strictly by School Size does not account for diversity of programs across the state, feeder situations, etc. and leads to divisions being unbalanced and unfair to smaller bands.
The current model accounts for both School and Band Sizes, but there is still some discrepancy and a wide range of band sizes.
Some points to consider in formulating a solution:
At the end of the day, we all can agree there is a certain sound you can only get our of an ensemble of a greater size. There are visual impacts which are more effective the larger a band is.
Larger programs have more resources available, regardless of school size.
Larger schools have more resources available, regardless of band size.
Some questions to consider in formulating a solution:
To what extent should these points be resolved by the evaluation scale?
To what extent should these points be resolved by the organization of divisions?
In the spirit of competition, how do we best preserve a fair matchup between groups?
How do we define a fair matchup?
How many bands are too much for a single division?
To what extent do students feel the impact of placing lower in a smaller division vs. a larger one? (i.e. taking last place in a division of 10 bands rather than 5 bands)
JUDGING
Many directors have expressed concerns over the objectivity and reliability of judge feedback.
Some potential conflicts pointed out by many include:
Many judge tapes are limited and ambiguous in how the band can improve.
Many judge tapes do not accurately define the reasoning for the score given by the judge.
Many judges give inappropriate feedback beyond their caption area.
Judge qualifications are questionable and held to no definable standard within the UMEA circuit.
Some points to consider in formulating a solution:
Adjudication sheets are rarely elaborated upon in judge feedback tapes.
The judge selection process does not clearly present itself across the circuit.
John Miller recruits the majority of judges.
Some questions to consider in formulating a solution:
To what extent should John Miller have authority over judge selection?
To what extent should the membership have proactive input over judge selection?
To what extent would a judge's training be beneficial in standardizing expectations and the judging process?
How can we ensure judges provide meaningful feedback objective to each show?
SCORING
Many directors have expressed concerns over the objectivity and consistency in scoring.
Some potential conflicts pointed out by many include:
Feedback given rarely explains or justifies scores given by judges.
Scoring may currently designed in a manner which promotes subjectivity.
Scores appear to be inflated between divisions.
Scores between competitions fluctuate greatly with no apparent standard.
Some points to consider in formulating a solution:
Adjudication sheets are rarely elaborated upon in judge feedback tapes.
Existing adjudication sheets are subjective in nature with guidelines given vaguely rather than in rubric form.
Some questions to consider in formulating a solution:
To what extent should the scoring procedure be objective?
To what extent should a score be a quantified evaluation of a band's performance?
To what extent would a standards-based rubric be the most comprehensive form of evaluation data?
To what extent would a rubric be beneficial for feedback in addition to verbal comments?
STUDENT EXPERIENCE
Many students and directors have expressed concerns over the experience and value for students in attending competitions beyond their own performance.
Some potential conflicts pointed out by many include:
The spectating experience from the rear of the field is significantly less valuable than the front side.
The lack of engagement from viewing along the back side can lead to disruptive behavior.
Some points to consider in formulating a solution:
Some students go entire seasons without seeing a show from the intended perspective.
Allowing for student seating along the front side is logistically difficult with the current division sizes and competition size.
Current division lineups make it impossible or logistically exhausting for 6A bands to watch 5A bands and vice-versa.
Some questions to consider in formulating a solution:
To what extent should competitions be designed with student viewing experiences as a priority?
To what extent is it possible to address the points above at shows with 40+ bands while accommodating logistics such as parking and equipment trailers?
To what extent would a smaller-scale event be worth it if students had the opportunity to watch and celebrate other performances?
Help me understand where you are!
Please answer any and all of the questions given above as well as ideas for solutions to the UMEA circuit to gain better perspective!
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse