Lessons Learned from Minnesota: Suggestions to Improve WI LD
August 10, 2006 – 4:44 pm by: Nick BubbWissconsin Forensics Daily's lead up to the Debate Season - Gearing Up - continues today with a guess column focusing on the one person debate - Lincoln/Douglas Debate. Fresh after a year of coaching in Minnesota, former WDCA LD State Champion Liz Vieira returns to the state of LD debate in Wisconsin with fresh eyes. In a spirit of community building and improving LD debate, Liz has written the following article on how to foster competition and education in Wisconsin.
Check the full article out below the break. If other coaches and judges are interested in writing similar guest columns, please contact Nick Bubb through our contact form.
Lessons learn from Minnesota: Suggestions to improve Wisconsin LD
Liz Vieira, the 2003 and 2004 WDCA TOC LD Champion, will be a Junior at the University of Minnesota- Twin Cities where she majors in Cultural Studies with a focus on Linguistics/ Semiotics. As a first year coach, she coached the Minnesota JV State Champion and Novice State Runner-Up, an NCFL double-octafinalist, an NFL District Champion, a TOC Qualifier and had students invited to several round robins. This year she will be an assistant LD Coach at Lakeville Senior High School and looks forward to continuing to work with talented and hard-working students. She has recently lifted her ban on dating people affiliated with debate and is currently single.
In Minnesota, we're having a discussion on the future of LD debate and I think the same discussion is desperately needed in Wisconsin, but with an emphasis on different issues. The dwindling participation and quality of LD in Wisconsin frustrates me greatly. I learned so much from the activity itself, as well as from the social relationships I encountered. The possibility that future debaters may not get that same level of education simply because of when they enter the debate community is of a particular concern to me. I've heard excuses like "well, the local circuit cycles every couple of years" but as coaches and educators, I don't think we should be content to settle for lesser competition and education.
I think the first major step is to increase participation in LD, both within currently competing schools and adding new schools. There are three common "barriers to entry" that are cited as difficulties for breaking into debate:
First, a lack of administrative support makes it hard to start new teams/ earn support for existing teams. a) This problem isn't actually a barrier to success. Edina Senior High School, repeatedly a powerhouse on both local Minnesota circuit and the national circuit, was denied permission to read an announcement detailing that one of their debaters won the 2004 National Tournament of Champions. Yet the team went on to have another debater capture the 2004 NFL LD title and has continued success in the following years. Despite the administrations refusal to acknowledge the team's accomplishment, the team has continued to be succesful and operates fairly autonomously from the administration. b) It is our job as the debate community to convince administrations, both at our schools and others that debate is a worthwhile activity. When I wanted to travel my senior year, I had all of my former camp lab leaders write letters extolling the virtues of circuit travel and the educational benefits for me and sent them to my principal. I don't know if the WDCA already does this, but it seems that support from other coaches and the debate community as a whole could encourage administrations to accept debate for its academic benefits.
Second is my favorite supposed barrier: coaching and participating in debate requires specialized knowledge. Well… I'm living proof that it doesn't: I taught myself how to do LD by reading various websites. I got better by participating. I strongly believe that anyone with a desire to learn and succeed can do the work required to succeed at LD. Sure, I recognize that this is purely anecdotal evidence, but WI LD is certainly not prohibitive to new teams or debaters. I'm not particularly well versed in my WI LD history, but I know that at least Brookfield East broke into the LD circuit 5 years ago and has had NCFL/ NFL qualifiers every year since then.
Third, I hear a lot about financial barriers. While I'm the first to admit that money to travel and pay for camps may be prohibitive, I offer two simple solutions; one individual/ team based and one community based. a) Fundraising. Duh. Also, when individual debaters make debate a priority, they can better fund opportunities for themselves. My dad, a single parent, didn't have a job for my last year and a half of high school but I used earnings from my job and savings from gifts to pay for travel and camp because I felt it was important to me. My new team, in a fairly affluent community, has been fundraising like crazy all summer to pay for travel and team fees because the students feel a responsibility to pay for their expenses. Even those students whose parents are willing to dole out the cash, debaters still participate in fundraisers to help out their teammates as well as participate in team bonding. b) As a community, coaches can diminish the financial burden on schools and debaters by lowering entrance fees to tournaments. When this idea was first proposed in Minnesota, the immediate reaction was "but that's our primary fundraiser!" I've only taken intro to Micro/Macro Econ, but it seems to me that if every school lowered their entry fees… there wouldn't be a need for the tournament to be the primary fundraiser. Maybe this suggestion is too radical, but it does serve as a nice segue into community-based solutions to our problems.
So with the "barriers to entry" either disputed or thwarted, what are we as a community going to do to improve the quality of competition and increase participation in LD in WI? I'll begin with my answers, but I leave this as an open call for all to offer suggestions. My suggestions all center around building an actual community between coaches/ schools, which is why I intentionally chose this website as the forum for my treatise.
1. Stop being so darn political! Seriously. We're supposed to be adult educators, yet far too often petty political motives get in the way of decisions (be they individual rounds or WDCA policy). Please don't try to pull the "you're young, you don't understand, you're too idealistic" card. There is no reason that mature adults should not be able to put the interests of their students before their own (in terms of debate decisions, I'm not saying skip your wedding for a tournament). It's increasingly frustrating as I sit in tab rooms or judges lounges that discussion is often more like that of children arguing on a playground than adults seeking the best interest of education.
2. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Help out a start-up or struggling team by sharing busses, offering materials, offering to mentor coaches, etc. Only by truly acting as a community, can we become one. (Speaking of which, I have a bunch of intro to LD materials up for grabs, leave a comment with your email if you want it).
3. Encourage friendships among students. I know that when I debated, I was friends with many people on the local circuit and it made me enjoy tournaments (as well as Nicky Smith's pre-tournament smack-talk encouragement). For some reason, it
seems that the VSS policy circuit has done a much better job of building relationships between teams than what I noticed recently in LD (most notably, when I was trying to take pictures of WI LDers at NCFL, between rounds they were all spread out instead of hanging out with each other).
I feel like everytime I write something I come off as a self-righteous LD-Diva; please understand it is not my intention to tell WI how LD should be, I am just very concerned that students are not receiving the same benefits from the activity that I did. Debate was my most worthwhile expenditure of time during high school, which is why I continue to be actively involved and concerned about its welfare.
13 Responses to “Lessons Learned from Minnesota: Suggestions to Improve WI LD”
I think you bring up a good issue in that team/program development and retention needs to really be a major focus for debate in Wisconsin.
One suggestion where I see a problem though is that I doubt most tournaments can do much to drop entry fees. I don't know about others but in the five years doing tournaments in Madison I've broke even once, lost money three times, and made money once, for a grand total of being about $1100 in the hole for the five years.
Maybe I shouldn't include meals in the entry fees, try to squeeze money out of the students by charging $1.00 for a can of soda instead of $.50 (which is still almost a 100% profit), and keep the judges lounge food to the bare minimum (well, I've done that to great complaint in the past).
Even if schools can drop fees down I don't think its fair to say that they should not get fundraising benefit from doing the tournament. In the week prior to a tournament a coach can easily invest 20-30 hours taking care of registrations and in preparation. Thats time the coach, already poorly paid for their time spent on the activity, cannot work with students.
Hosting a tournament can also cause significant friction between the debate team and the faculty of a school if there are problems (and often when there are none). Teams that do not host tournaments, particularly established programs, should be compensating those programs that make the sacrifice to the community for their time and effort.
I currently ponder whether it is worth my time and effort to continue hosting an event that stresses me and diminishes my budget. Even bigger than the issue of fees, there may be real concerns about having tounaments in Wisconsin at all. Tournaments offer varying events and in some weeks there well may be only one or no schools at all willing to host (based on the spring meeting's volunteers).
By Tim Scheffler on Aug 10, 2006
Thanks for your comment, Mr. Scheffler. I'll admit that I know very, very little about planning a tournament so definitely defer to you on entry fees. I also was unaware that there is difficulty getting schools to host, which is troubling from a community-minded standpoint as well. I think I've blabbed enough about focusing on education, but I guess maybe another obligation to the community is to ensure that students have opportunities to participate. Obviously, it's difficult to mandate that schools host (because of things like building size, other staff support, etc) but is there any way to incentivize it from the WDCA's perspective? Like maybe offering discounted WDCA membership fee or STOC fees or something to schools that host? I realize that this may seem contradictory to my "coaches should do what's good for the community" stance, but despite my idealism, I also recognize that it's unrealistic to expect all coaches to host.
By Liz Vieira on Aug 10, 2006
When the WDCA Calendar comes out there will be a noticable drop in the number of tournaments. So much so, that even I've been asked to run a tournament at Sheboygan North.
By Nick Bubb on Aug 11, 2006
Hate to sound like a Disco competitor (considering I never did the category)… but now that we have some problems, anyone have suggestions for solutions?
By Liz Vieira on Aug 13, 2006
Liz, I don’t believe that entry fees are a barrier to participation in Wisconsin.
First, there are no WI tournaments that charge anything over a nominal fee. (much cheaper than any national circuit tournament).
Second, I don’t believe there is a WI tournament that is held that wouldn’t wave several LD entry fees to aid fledgling programs (I know many have already done so and will continue to do so for the asking)
Third, entry fees are only a fraction of the cost of a judge, thus the most expensive portion of debate is usually covering the judging obligation.
The next most expensive portion is travel (transportation and lodging). The easy answer to that is… “Hey, I only have a couple of kids, so I will just drive them in my vehicle” A simple and short term answer… at least until some administrator at the school finds out, then you will run into a whole series of complications even with the most cooperative of administrations. (mostly driven by litigation fears)(pun intended) Combining travel with nearby squads is efficacious… Appleton East and West have done so for years. So cutting down the cost of travel is not only possible but also probable to saving budgets.
There are some states (New Mexico for one and parts of California for another) that do not pay judges. That is the expected or norm there. Much more cost efficient, but it also increases the number of parent judges and bus driver judges. Additionally, it is much more difficult to go from judges being paid to volunteer judges. Heck, it is difficult enough to find enough individuals to judge while you pay them… now, tell a coach to acquire enough judges on a volunteer basis, and you will lose coaches at an even faster rate.
Coaches are the key to developing programs! Liz, you say you became an LD debater on your own, but I put it to you that your journey of becoming interested in LD all the way to traveling to national circuit tournaments would have been exponentially more difficult had you come from say… Franklin. The influence of debate already in your school district, in addition to a strong speech program at your school made your journey significantly easier. Additionally, I believe there always was a debate coach in place at Brookfield East. Regardless, the key to developing “programs” is having a motivated coach or adult. Having several motivated students starting something up is great, but it will not sustain without getting an adult involved that will be around more than a couple of years. This is not a unique problem to WI. Last week I spent 3 days at a leadership conference with the National Forensic League.
District chairpersons from all over the country were in attendance, and a recurring theme was replacing retiring coaches, and finding new coaches. Of course there is the problem of funding, as districts cut funding to programs or cut programs in general, but if there is a motivated coach in place, they will find answers to the funding problems. (speaking of program cuts… There is a rumor that Neenah School District is potentially looking at cutting the debate program entirely. Oddly, this comes after the retirement of the McBrides, and the lack of being able to find a coach to replace them. How hard the district looked for a new coach - I couldn’t tell you). I just know that if there was a motivated coach in place there, it would be much harder to eliminate that program.
LD in Wisconsin… I have been a promoter of LD in the state for as long as I have been involved in debate, in fact longer - as I was judging LD 2 years before I became a debate coach. I have always promoted and encouraged the event (heck, LD receives the most prestigious trophy at the East Challenge debate tournament). I wish I knew why Wisconsin debate coaches (with respect to those that are champions of LD) in general refuse to develop LD programs. I wish I knew why a program like Cedarburg refuses to embrace LD. They have many bright students that would be more than capable of debating in the LD world. Or likewise Brookfield Central, or Merrill, or LaCrosse. I just wish I knew what it would take to get those programs to allow students to participate in the LD division.
Additionally, on the speech side of Wisconsin… how naive I was to think that the activity was about the development of students and individual achievement. Two years ago, when LD was removed from the team points at the WFCA state tournament, it virtually killed LD in the spring! Oddly enough, I thought that it would free up schools to let students participate in this most beneficial activity, not take WDCA champions and make them do a speech events instead. I guess I was wrong, speech events are really about the team trophies. (I can not tell you how depressed I was about learning this, and as a matter of fact I am still bothered about it) At the fall meeting for WFCA it will be proposed to eliminate LD entirely from the spring, and I am strangely enough in favor of this proposal. Over the past 2 years LD debaters have been treated like second class citizens, which I find even more detrimental than no spring season at all. Maybe this will encourage the debate community of WI to embrace LD more in the fall. Liz, Minnesota has an amazing LD community, I wish that WI could have that many LD programs and/or students involved in LD debate.
So what are the differences in the communities (WI LD vs MN LD)…
The first that appears to me is geography. The metropolis of the Twin Cities and its surrounding suburbs foster development of strong academic activities, at least to a higher degree than predominantly rural communities, which in my opinion fosters LD debate programs.
The second difference to me is the acceptance factor. The MN debate community in general has been much more accepting of LD since it conception (1978 I believe) than WI. Heck, it took WI debate community 20 years to recognize LD at its State debate tournament. (don’t even get me going on the remaining existence of 4 person debate while 95% of the rest of the nation has abolished it). So while I would love a quick fix to the small number of LD debaters in WI, I think it impossible. It is a long slow process of continuing to promote, encourage and develop. I don’t mean to sound like a killjoy… I am just a realist, but also forever a cheerleader of Lincoln Douglas debate.
Traas
By Michael Traas on Aug 15, 2006
Hey, don't know why my last post didn't recognize my indents or paragraph seperations, but I am not an idiot… they were there before I posted.
By Michael Traas on Aug 15, 2006
Great post, Traas… I added paragraph breaks (might not have been where intended but hopefully close enough). I'm sure the problem was my fault… I've been neglecting the site while I work on a new version and probably messed something up while experimenting with the comments.
I'll add my thoughts about LD soon, but I agree with (almost?) everything Traas wrote.
~Bill
By Bill Batterman on Aug 15, 2006
Mike, Though I respect you opinions and agree with much of what you said, I find it unhelpful to your arguments to call out a few schools who don't do LD. I spent 3 years coaching and judging for Cedarburg. I spent 4 years debating there. There are pretty valid reasons that we never 'embraced' LD, and I don't feel it necessary to delve into them on a public post. I don't know what the new head coaches are planning on doing, but your comments don't encourage them to consider LD.
By John Knetzger on Aug 16, 2006
I don't think Tech has ever done LD debate before, at least not when I was there. I think that the numbers are so small for LD in WI is because of a lack of understanding and maybe even training for the category. I have tried to throw students into that category, I even had one of my strongest debaters writing speeches for LD before he pulled out for Chess and to focus on his grades. I find myself feeling very limited in my own understanding of it as I have tried to train myself and have gotten only so far. It is just another challenge that I hope to conquer every year. Maybe there needs to be more of an effort to reach as many schools as possible to first train coaches and then students on the nature of LD. Just a thought.
By Ernest Chomicki on Aug 16, 2006
John, I did not "call out" anyone, I simply provided several examples of prolific debate programs in WI which do not embrace LD. Did I say they are terrible people? No, I just said I do not understand why they do not embrace another style of debate besides policy. I guess I have to ask… why are you so sensitive? How can what I posted offend you? The first lesson to my novice debaters is a debate is not affective if you let it become personal. recap - I stated I do not know why these do not embrace LD, and you stated "Mike, you are namecalling and now none of us that don't do LD will never because you have offended all of us". Please answer my question with a substantual response beyond "there are pretty valid reasons". What are those reasons, then I can understand what those programs dislike about LD. Additionally, if you don't like this discussion, don't feel compelled to respond… remember the title of this particular discussion is Suggestions to improve LD in WI, and in my humble opinion… increased participation would improve the state of LD in this state. Ernest, please ask! There are many individuals in this state that would be more than willing to help any student or coach that is looking for help. Heck, I would provide any student interested with prepared cases, research or any information if it would help them in the activity, and I would wager that there are many others would privide any help they could also.
By Michael Traas on Aug 16, 2006
Brief, because I don't know how long my wireless will last. I might add more once I get home tomorrow. I didn't intend to imply that coaches aren't integral to programs. I definitely appreciate all my coaches and the WI debate community (both adults and students) did for me. The example was more illustrative, in that if a fourteen year old can learn how the basics of ld with a little research online, other motivated students or potential coaches could as well. I certainly wouldn't have become a coach if i didn't think they were important and I wouldn't take on additional students e-coaching if I thought coaching didn't matter at all. Mr. Traas, I especially want to acknowledge the work you have done to promote LD in Wisconsin (despite the fact that the trophy from the challenge doesn't fit in the box with the rest of them :)). The differences between Minnesota and Wisconsin debate communities aren't really that relevant, because numbers have dropped in Wisconsin in the past year. So something happened in Wisconsin to cause this drop off, and I want to figure out what it is. Ok, a lot of us graduated… but why aren't there new debaters/ coaches interested in taking up the activity?
By Liz Vieira on Aug 16, 2006
Liz, you make the claim that the numbers in WI LD are dropping, however at the East tournament the numbers were the highest they have ever been this past year. I guess I am not understanding how you feel that there has been a drastic change recently. The numbers are small, they have always been small… so very slight changes may feel exponentially larger than they are, but there has not been drastic changes recently in my opinion. You may also suffer from “when I was young, everything seemed larger” syndrome… heck, it still affects me. I just wish we could have 130 LD debaters at the challenge, rather than 30 to 35.
Young coaches, like yourself Liz, are the key! Stay involved, keep that high energy and excitement level, and continue to get students engaged in LD!!!! It is wonderful!
By Michael Traas on Aug 17, 2006
I don't understand this lack of technical expertise argument. Policy coaches do teach their kids how to run a topicality violation, right? LD is not so different. Confused? Let me explain.
LD debate is a normative debate, that is the resolution consists of an evaluative term and an object of evaluation. For example - on the current topic; "Just" is the evaluative term and the object of evaluation is whether or not the government provides health care. LD debaters introduce a value premise and a value criterion in order to evaluate the object of evaluation (e.g. a government's provision of health care). The value premise and the value criterion form what is known on the LD National Circuit as the "standard."
LD debates take place primarily at two levels: What is the standard? And who achieves it?
This kind of thinking is not unlike how a technical policy judge might evaluate a topicality evaluation. For example - what is the standard for deciding the interpretation of the topic? Is it the clearest bright line? Or perhaps its the one that offers the best grammatical meaning? But simply deciding how to evaluate the topic does not tell you which interpretation fulfill's that standard.
LD debates function in the same way. Simply deciding that right's protection (or a just government or any other thing) is good does not end the debate. LD debaters need to show that their side can actually meet the standard (or conversely, that their opponent cannot meet the standard).
Debate is all the same at some level, so I guess I have a hard time understanding this lack of expertise. Especially because if its true that policy coaches lack such an expertise, then, I guess the implication is that they don't know how to handle topicality either. I certainly hope that's not true.
Besides, I've offered for years (and only started last year) to teach LD sessions for everyone at the WDCA workshop.
By Nick Bubb on Aug 17, 2006