Last year it was decided to give a trial at having six divisions at State instead of the the three that we had always had before. It was decided to try it for one year and then decide whether to keep the change. The old divisions were K-5, K-8, and K-12. The divisions added were K-3, K-6, and K-9.
The question is do we keep the new divisions, go back to the old way of doing the competition, or make some modifications.
Please give your position and opinions by adding a comment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
My memory of Tom Brownscombe's motion, which we approved at the State meeting last year, is that he said nothing about there being a "trial" year. Correct me if I'm wrong, Floyd, but I believe the only way we can decide on a different format for divisions is through a By-Laws change. And according to the By-Laws, this must be proposed and deciminated well in advance of the State meeting through a forum such as this State Blog one.
ReplyDeleteI can't speak to the by-law situation. From my perspective, though, having more sections will provide kids the opportunity to compete in a pool more representative of their peers (noting that players can play up if they choose). That can only be a good thing, so long as the State Tournament can draw enough participation to have strong attendance in each section. The new division structure (6) would seem to be an improvement for most kids.
ReplyDeleteCurrently, most of the scholastic tournaments around the state have more than 3 sections. I think it would be a shame for the biggest tournament of the year to have only 3 sections. K-5 is too wide a range for the younger kids.
ReplyDeleteI think that the lowest section should be K-2 and notation free. That would put three grades in that section, three in the K-5 sections that most tournaments have.
ReplyDeleteI also change it to where it was recommended that all tournaments host four sections unless registration was so small sections need to be combined.
I think K-5 is too wide. K-2 or K-3 should be lowest. There is a line there. Having 3rd graders notate in K-3 is ok. They usually think faster than the lower grades so that the notation time will balance out. Also having it K-2 and notation free may be ok also. I have been to many of both. when you have K-3 and K-5 - K-5 is mostly 4/5 grades. The K-3/K-2 allow the newer younger kids the opprotunity to earn medals and trophies. This keeps there excitement about the game alive.
ReplyDeleteI don't think there should be a K-6 nor K-9. Too redundant. It should be more to the overall grade structure, EL, JH, HS.
I also agree w/ Floyd - host 4 sections should be recommended. Otherwise the K-5 is too tough for younger students.
I suggested the current structure for several reasons, one of which was that there were too many players per section last year (for a six round tournament). One of my goals in suggesting the change was to have smaller sections. If we get rid of K-6 and K-9, then the K-8 and K-12 sections won't get any smaller.
ReplyDeleteMy experience running KSCA tournaments with both K-3 and K-5 sections is that the K-5 is usually larger than the K-3. But changing K-3 to K-2 would only be a good idea if the K-5 turns out to be much smaller than the K-3. If the K-3 and the K-5 at state are of similar size (or if the K-5 is bigger than the K-3) then switching from K-3 to K-2 would be a mistake.
I don't understand the notation issue. But then there are a bunch of KSCA rules and procedures that don't make any sense to me. I assumed when I made the proposal last year that the chief TD at state would declare notation optional in the K-3 section. That would be consistent with USCF rules and practices. Every time that I have run a K-3 section at a KSCA tournament, I have simply announced that notation is recommended but not required in the K-3 section. No problem.
This idea that players in grades K-2 should be excused from taking notation while players in the same section in grades 3 and above should be required to take notation is obviously unfair. Either notation should be required for all players in a section or it should not be required for any players. I have always taken for granted the idea that all competitors should be playing according to the same rules. Before I moved to Kansas I thought that this idea was so obvious that I had trouble imagining that any group of people might disagree with it. Yet to my continued amazement, the KSCA regularly publishes rules and procedures that give one group of players an advantage over their competitors. I just don't get it. Why does anyone think that it might be fair to require that some players take notation while their competitors are not required to do so?
Tom Brownscombe
Preregistration has just been posted. The K-12 is still too large, but with accelerated pairings and a little luck it will be OK. The K-8 is still a bit big, but accelerated pairings should take care of that. The K-3 and K-5 split nicely. That is working well. The K-6 is a bit small, but not too bad. The K-9 is quite small and seems to be mainly composed of 9th graders with a HS team code. But that's OK as far as I'm concerned. We wouldn't want to force those 9th graders back into the K-12 section (which still has a few too many players for a 6 round tournament).
ReplyDeleteTom Brownscombe