Jump to content

coyotedb8

Member
  • Content Count

    159
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

coyotedb8 last won the day on April 12 2006

coyotedb8 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

62 Excellent

About coyotedb8

  • Rank
    Longtime Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  1. Just FYI, here is a link to Stefan Bauschard's analysis of the topic published in the May issue of The Rostrum: http://cf.edliostatic.com/USwZkx0PnWO2nU6x6cGzlq3uxGfDf0I2.pdf Here is a paper published by the National Center for Policy Analysis with a background on the economic issues: http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/Message_to_Debaters_6-7-13.pdf
  2. They would have kept the November PF topic had it been one bought and paid for by a sponsor. I think everyone should simply skip doing PF in November. It seems obvious the NFL office imposed this topic as punishment.
  3. From what I understand, one of them was taking the SAT today.
  4. I'm a sweepstakes hog and a forensic omnivore. I believe different events provide different learning experiences and that one must match events to personality types, interests, abilities and limitations (such as available time). Thus, I do try to do everything. In my heart, I still think CX is the king, and the kids I have coached know how I feel. However, I believe other debate events offer worthwhile education and also coach students who compete in those events. Arguably, my students have enjoyed as much or more success in LD than in CX, but I dont think it's because of how I marketed events. All my debaters do extemp. Period. In my world those things just go together. They also all do impromptu at tournaments where impromptu is offered (in Texas it's not a state-level event, so many tournaments do not offer it). I encourage them to try other events as well. I have had students move from debate to interp upon discovering they liked interp better and were better at it. This is the first year that the Texas Forensic Association recognized PF as a qualifying event. Up to now, very few tournaments offered PF because it wasn't a state qualifying event. A few offered it for giggles to collect fee money and offer a venue for those preparing for NCFL & NFL competition. For several years, a group of coaches pushed for recognition of PF, arguing it was necessary to maintain vitality of the forensic activity. They argued many students just couldn't relate to either LD or CX and that PF was an answer. Oddly enough, after PF was recognized as a state qualifier, many qualifying tournaments still did not offer PF. And even stranger, I think, is that PF seemed least likely to be offered at tournaments in the geographic areas in which its advocates coached. Weird. By contrast, in the Houston area (where I think the reception of PF was somewhat lukewarm), just about all tournaments began offering PF right away. The result is that the majority of participation in PF occurred in the areas where LD and CX were already strongest. (And the truth was that the only reason PF passed with enough votes this year was its creation was supported by hard-core CX types who wanted to find a backwater in which to dump weak CX teams and their concomitant weak judges who at present "mess up" the CX judging pool at TFA State, the hope being that the noncompetitive among us will take the hint and get out of the event. That was the unspoken subtext. Just another of my crazy conspiracy theories that seems to coincide with the truth but that I cannot prove.) I don't think PF is to blame for the phenomenon of declining entry numbers in the debate events I have witnessed at tournaments in our metro area. It was not many years ago that, when we had two tournaments in town on a given weekend, both of those tournaments would end up with a field of 80-100 varsity LDers. Now, on some weekends when only one tournament is being held in town, that sole tournament usually gets about 50-65 LDers. CX numbers have similarly limped downward. The difference cannot be attributed to the presence of PF. As for my program, I have not had numbers in CX and LD decline because of also coaching PF. But then again, I have yet to make the leap of faith to offer PF as a standalone event like CX and LD. The kids I have had compete in PF do one of the other debate events primarily and then compete in PF at certain tournaments for certain reasons. The initial post for this thread seems to presume one recruits students to fill spots in events. I've never approached things that way. I grab kids for the Forensics Team and figure the rest out after that. Perhaps that is why I don't think I could ever say the number of debate events has impacted recruiting or the number of kids in the program. Where PF's death warrant was signed was when the NFL decided to back off its initial rule for the event that said coaches and college debaters could not be judges. When PF was first conceived there was such a rule. Problems in recruiting enough community judges for NFL Nationals led the Executive Council to rescind that rule. The effect of that has been to insert judges in the event who basically have conventions they learned in CX and/or LD that they invariably carry with them when adjudicating PF rounds. The justification offered by NFL when this event was marketed was that we needed a brand of debate that eschewed the "profesional" judge to free debate to return to its community/public roots. When they got rid of the lay-only judge rule, that justification for the event evaporated. In my opinion. NCFL has taken the lead in eliminating the rule that calls for flipping for sides every round, and now I hear many voices in a chorus echoing this newfound "switch sides in PF" orthodoxy that I think will soom eliminate that across the board as well. It will be a short time before PF is fully homogenized. I am willing to bet anyone on here $20 that, within three years, NFL will begin releasing a list of potential PF topics for the coming year at NFL Nationals like they do now for LD. That will enable the camps to market themselves to PF in a dimension they cannot presently do. We are already headed down the slope with PF as others have said. Making PF yet another camp captive will push it off the cliff into the CX and LD ash heap. Then we will be left to wonder, "Tell me again, why was it we needed another debate event?"
  5. On Fridays, I wear a suit. On Saturdays, I wear jeans with our team shirt. But most coaches in our area wear whatever.
  6. The PF topic is the latest indication of the intention to make PF "CX lite." Mark my words, the next move will be to come up with a list of topics from which next year's will be drawn. Now that PF is a qualifying event in Texas you can bank on it.
  7. In Texas Forensic Association tournaments, the norm is 3 or 4 prelim rounds followed by quarters. If the number of teams is over 50 there have to be octos. My experience is there are usually octos if there are 40+. I think most hosts believe you should break somewhere about 1/3 of the field in local (qualifying) tournaments. Tiebreaker rules depend on the number of prelim rounds. If there are 3 prelims, the first tiebreaker is total points, followed by adjusted (hi/lo) points. If there are 4 or more prelims, the first tiebreaker is adjusted (hi/lo) points, then total. In tournaments governed by our state activities association (UIL), total points is always the first tiebreaker, ahead of adjusted points. I've always been an advocate for using opponent win-loss record as the first tiebreaker. It may not be perfect, but it's objective. Yes, there's some luck involved in terms of pairings, but I believe it's superior to the subjectivity and randomness of speaker points.
  8. Under the new proposal, Debate will not count in the GPA at all. Debate is not a "fine arts" course. While the new GPA rule will only apply to next year's freshmen and beyond, I think it will have a big - and negative - impact on recruiting.
  9. You presume patrons of cross-x.com constitute a representative sample of the high school coaching community who casts votes on the resolution. I can assure you there are many coaches who have never visited this site.
  10. In Texas almost every school (well, at least the public ones) relies on full time teachers to coach debate. Debate is an extra duty assigned to full time teachers. I have noticed in other states there are job postings for people to just coach debate, usually on a part-time or half-time basis. That doesn't happen in Texas. Sure, some squads hire college debaters to help coach and pay them on the side, but that's just part-time fun, not a job with benefits etc. (A few private schools here are exceptions.) In some Texas schools debate is a class. The better debate programs almost all revolve around a debate class or classes. However, many programs are only extracurricular in nature. You should consider this carefully when applying. Very few schools (just about none) offer a full teaching load of debate classes. Debate is only a free elective that does not satisfy any graduation requirements. Thus, one who teaches debate also must teach other courses. Most often those who teach debate also teach the state's required speech course, called Communication Applications. You will find that most hiring personnel (principals) are more concerned with filling the slot to teach other courses than they are with finding a good person for debate. And unfortunately, few principals have a forensics background, so they don't even know the questions they should ask or how to vet candidates for a debate position. Stipends for debate vary widely. Many get no compensation on top of their base salary. Some get as much as $10,000, but not very many. Most hover in the $500 to $2,000 range. Check into that when applying. Bottom line: You don't do this for the money. You will make more money working at a convenience store on the side than you make coaching debate when you add up the hours aand divide the money by the hours. Texas public school teachers must be certified. To teach Debate, one must be certified in the Speech Communications or English language Arts Composite areas. Yes, there are alternative routes to certification, but in the English language arts area, in general, few school districts will hire a person who is not certified. There are hoops that must be jumped for a school district to hire someone who isn't certified, and while the shortages in the math, science and foreign language areas make districts willing to go that route in those fields, there are enough people looking for jobs in the ELA arena that they usually don't go the alternative certification route for those positions (though there are some exceptions). I went back to get my teaching certification after I graduated from college and had been in the work force for years. I did a postbaccalaureate program where I had to do 15 semester hours of coursework online and then one semester of student teaching. I did the coursework during the summer sessions and fall semester, and then did student teaching in the spring, finishing the whole thing up in just under a year. I had to sacrifice to be able to do student teaching for that semester, but I look back now and am glad I did it that way. It enabled me to get fully certified and able to find a job without going through the alternative route. And all told it cost me about $2,000 (this was in 2001-02), so the price tag was doable. Quite a few school districts do not advertise debate openings. Often they will list an opening in speech (or other course offering) without mentioning debate is expected with it. It's very helpful to speak with current coaches in a geographic area you are interested in to find out what they know about current or future openings in debate. For instance, in a large school district near my home, this past summer the district was looking to fill four debate coaching vacancies I knew to exist, but if you had looked at their job board online they never mentioned anything having to do with debate. In addition, current debate coaches are good to know in terms of providing you a referral to the right people to talk to or being a reference. Job postings often do not state crucial information about who the real decisionmakers are, or that one ought to speak to the district's fine arts coordinator first before approaching a principal. Coaches can help you navigate that terrain.
  11. Dear Texas Coaches: On September 5, the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB), the regulators of Texas public colleges and universities, published a proposed rule that would require all public high schools in the state to calculate a student's GPA in the same manner. All students' GPA will be on a 4.0 scale. No courses will be allowed to receive a weighted grade other than AP, IB and dual credit courses (with the exceptions of yearbook and journalism!). That means Debate, Oral Interp and the pre-AP courses would no longer be permitted to give students additional GPA points. The deadline for public comment is this Monday, October 6. Comments should be sent to natalie.coffey@thecb.state.tx.us. That is Natalie Coffey, Senior Program Director, Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, P.O Box 12788, Austin, Texas 78711. The proposed rule can be found here: http://www.tcta.org/documents/0905prop.pdf. For those of you who believe it is important students in the Debate and Oral Interp classes receive a bonus to their GPA by reason of the academic rigor of those courses, now is the time to speak up.
  12. Texas Coaches and Debaters: On September 5, the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB), the regulators of Texas public colleges and universities, published a proposed rule that would require all public high schools in the state to calculate a student's GPA in the same manner. All students' GPA will be on a 4.0 scale. No courses will be allowed to receive a weighted grade other than AP, IB and dual credit courses (with the exceptions of yearbook and journalism!). That means Debate, Oral Interp and the pre-AP courses would no longer be permitted to give students additional GPA points. The deadline for public comment is this Monday, October 6. Comments should be sent to natalie.coffey@thecb.state.tx.us. That is Natalie Coffey, Senior Program Director, Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, P.O Box 12788, Austin, Texas 78711. The proposed rule can be found here: http://www.tcta.org/documents/0905prop.pdf. For those of you who believe it is important students in the Debate and Oral Interp classes receive a bonus to their GPA by reason of the academic rigor of those courses, now is the time to speak up.
×
×
  • Create New...