At the Spring Meeting of the WGASC the membership voted to add a third class for the junior high/middle schools. "They" have decided that it will not happen this year because the committee that was set up to decide the "name" of the class and the "sheets" to be used "dropped the ball."
In reality, the chair of the committe went into labor and delivered her baby ahead of schedule! At that time, we were still waiting to hear from other circuits regarding their "sheets" for the lowest class. In the mean time, the web site was set up for units to join WITHOUT the third class. Now we find out that the web site was set up in MAY and it would cost too much to redu the forms. The meeting was in JUNE!! "They" knew at the meeting that this would not happen this year and they led us on!
Please, all jh/ms instructors, email the WGASC and INSIST that they honor the wishes of the membership! By the way, the committee decided to use the RA sheets as is, because there is NO regulation (as we were told) that we cannot have 3 classes on the same sheets.
This is just one more example of how "they" APPEAR to not care about the youngest members of the circuit.
[/b]
WGASC DOES NOT CARE ABOUT MEMBERSHIP VOTES!!
Moderators: laurab, Gallagher, guardthepiccolo
-
BttrDrummerThanU
- Section Leader
- Posts: 763
- Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2002 8:04 pm
I'm going to agree with ChapOrch here. This is a ridiculous situation where members voted for something, and that something is not being carried out.
If you look closely at the WGASC member list you will find these interesting observations...
1.
26 JH/MS is Regional A
3 JH/MS is Regional AA
2.
Two of the Three JH/MS that medalled in Regional AA have de-moted themselves to Regional A.
3.
All but two of the guards that competed in Regional AA Last year have demoted themsevles (even though they did score above all of the Regional A groups)
4.
The guards that consistently medal in Regional A refuse to move up to the next division.
At the WGASC meeting we did vote YES on creating a third JH/MS class.
I suggest this third class be a "novice" class w/ less requirements. One of these requirements should be a shorter minimum time limit, that way guards can focus on producing a cleaner show. There also needs to be a change in sheets.
If this does not happen I say that we need to dissolve the Regional AA JH/MS division and just let those guards compete in the Regional AA HS division.
I feel dividing all of these JH/MS into two divisions (one with 3 and one with 26) is completely unbalanced. There needs to be better criteria for being placed in a division than "oh, i think i want to move down so i can medal". That does not sit well with me.
If you look closely at the WGASC member list you will find these interesting observations...
1.
26 JH/MS is Regional A
3 JH/MS is Regional AA
2.
Two of the Three JH/MS that medalled in Regional AA have de-moted themselves to Regional A.
3.
All but two of the guards that competed in Regional AA Last year have demoted themsevles (even though they did score above all of the Regional A groups)
4.
The guards that consistently medal in Regional A refuse to move up to the next division.
At the WGASC meeting we did vote YES on creating a third JH/MS class.
I suggest this third class be a "novice" class w/ less requirements. One of these requirements should be a shorter minimum time limit, that way guards can focus on producing a cleaner show. There also needs to be a change in sheets.
If this does not happen I say that we need to dissolve the Regional AA JH/MS division and just let those guards compete in the Regional AA HS division.
I feel dividing all of these JH/MS into two divisions (one with 3 and one with 26) is completely unbalanced. There needs to be better criteria for being placed in a division than "oh, i think i want to move down so i can medal". That does not sit well with me.
Although I cannot speak for the board, I believe I can illuminate the issue and what has happened, as well as what should happen. The reason I can do this is because I was approached by the chair of this committee for information about developing a new novice junior high sheet. This happened at the very end of June--my reply is dated June 26, and she responded June 28, 2005.
As I understood it, the committee was to come up with a new sheet with a criteria reference that would serve the emerging class of junior high/middle school guards. This was both discussed at the meeting, and in the committee chair's correspondence to me. Then, the plan would be passed along to the education coordinator for input and presented to the board, who already knew and had agreed to the concept. It was a great idea, and an educationally responsive approach.
If the committee chair was otherwise engaged (and I would say having a baby is a pretty significant engagement), it does seem reasonable to expect that the rest of the committee would finish the job. In the committee chair's correspondence and subsequent response, it seemed that the process was fairly far along.
Apparently, however, there was no plan offered by anyone, which is why the system has not changed, not because the board is intransigent and is ignoring the will of the vote. This is an important and significant detail because the original post gives very much the opposite impression.
I am fairly certain characterizing the challenge as an 'us' versus 'them' issue is neither accurate nor helpful. Certainly I personally (among a pitiful minority) was very vocally against the amendment because I didn't (and still do not) believe a three-way split for the junior high/middle school is educationally sound. (One only need to spend some time in New England and watch the 6-8 year olds of St. Ann's Cadets to know they could rip up most of our junior high programs--it is not the variance of physical maturity of older jh/ms'ers or sophisticated show design as was argued at the meeting--it is TRAINING.) And, the circuit already accommodates the junior highs like everyone else by splitting classes into smaller competitive groups, both on a weekly basis and for Championships.
Anyway, I digress. My point in bringing this up is that it was the president who suggested the committee chair contact me to find out what happens in the east, and I was very happy to give her all the information I knew. Frankly, the board was doing everything it could to help the process along, and I think a better solution at this point would be for the committee to reconvene with or without the chair (or perhaps contact the president and designate a new chair) and come up with a solution that they could pitch to the board. I am sure if someone approached the president with a solution he would be open about discussing it. That a decision would be made based on what the web site does or does not do is laughable.
So, I encourage those of you on this committee to act if you seriously want the so-called will of the vote to prevail. This is what you agreed to do--and a huge theme of that summer meeting was to get more individuals involved. What is implied above is that you don't want the obligation to come up with the plans, you just want the board to do it for you. I'm afraid that is not really involvement.
Get in there and be active, don't wait for an invitation. There's room enough at the table for everyone.
Cheers to you!
As I understood it, the committee was to come up with a new sheet with a criteria reference that would serve the emerging class of junior high/middle school guards. This was both discussed at the meeting, and in the committee chair's correspondence to me. Then, the plan would be passed along to the education coordinator for input and presented to the board, who already knew and had agreed to the concept. It was a great idea, and an educationally responsive approach.
If the committee chair was otherwise engaged (and I would say having a baby is a pretty significant engagement), it does seem reasonable to expect that the rest of the committee would finish the job. In the committee chair's correspondence and subsequent response, it seemed that the process was fairly far along.
Apparently, however, there was no plan offered by anyone, which is why the system has not changed, not because the board is intransigent and is ignoring the will of the vote. This is an important and significant detail because the original post gives very much the opposite impression.
I am fairly certain characterizing the challenge as an 'us' versus 'them' issue is neither accurate nor helpful. Certainly I personally (among a pitiful minority) was very vocally against the amendment because I didn't (and still do not) believe a three-way split for the junior high/middle school is educationally sound. (One only need to spend some time in New England and watch the 6-8 year olds of St. Ann's Cadets to know they could rip up most of our junior high programs--it is not the variance of physical maturity of older jh/ms'ers or sophisticated show design as was argued at the meeting--it is TRAINING.) And, the circuit already accommodates the junior highs like everyone else by splitting classes into smaller competitive groups, both on a weekly basis and for Championships.
Anyway, I digress. My point in bringing this up is that it was the president who suggested the committee chair contact me to find out what happens in the east, and I was very happy to give her all the information I knew. Frankly, the board was doing everything it could to help the process along, and I think a better solution at this point would be for the committee to reconvene with or without the chair (or perhaps contact the president and designate a new chair) and come up with a solution that they could pitch to the board. I am sure if someone approached the president with a solution he would be open about discussing it. That a decision would be made based on what the web site does or does not do is laughable.
So, I encourage those of you on this committee to act if you seriously want the so-called will of the vote to prevail. This is what you agreed to do--and a huge theme of that summer meeting was to get more individuals involved. What is implied above is that you don't want the obligation to come up with the plans, you just want the board to do it for you. I'm afraid that is not really involvement.
Get in there and be active, don't wait for an invitation. There's room enough at the table for everyone.
Cheers to you!
Last edited by gllacer on Tue Nov 22, 2005 5:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
totherescue
- Veteran
- Posts: 311
- Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2004 9:13 pm
Although I cannot speak for the board, I believe I can illuminate the issue and what has happened, as well as what should happen. The reason I can do this is because I was approached by the chair of this committee for information about developing a new novice junior high sheet. This happened at the very end of June--my reply is dated June 26, and she responded June 28, 2005.
As I understood it, the committee was to come up with a new sheet with a criteria reference that would serve the emerging class of junior high/middle school guards. This was both discussed at the meeting, and in the committee chair's correspondence to me. Then, the plan would be passed along to the education coordinator for input and presented to the board, who already knew and had agreed to the concept. It was a great idea, and an educationally responsive approach.
If the committee chair was otherwise engaged (and I would say having a baby is a pretty significant engagement), it does seem reasonable to expect that the rest of the committee would finish the job. In the committee chair's correspondence and subsequent response, it seemed that the process was fairly far along.
Apparently, however, there was no plan offered by anyone, which is why the system has not changed, not because the board is intransigent and is ignoring the will of the vote. This is an important and significant detail because the original post gives very much the opposite impression.
I am fairly certain characterizing the challenge as an 'us' versus 'them' issue is neither accurate nor helpful. Certainly I personally (among a pitiful minority) was very vocally against the amendment because I didn't (and still do not believe) a three-way split for the junior high/middle school is educationally sound. (One only need to spend some time in New England and watch the 6-8 year olds of St. Ann's Cadets to know they could rip up most of our junior high programs--it is not the variance of physical maturity of older jh/ms'ers as was argued at the meeting--it is TRAINING.) And, the circuit already accommodates the junior highs like everyone else by splitting classes into smaller competitive groups, both on a weekly basis and for Championships.
Anyway, I digress. My point in bringing this up is that it was the president who suggested the committee chair contact me to find out what happens in the east, and I was very happy to give her all the information I knew. Frankly, the board was doing everything it could to help the process along, and I think a better solution at this point would be for the committee to reconvene with or without the chair (or perhaps contact the president and designate a new chair) and come up with a solution that they could pitch to the board. I am sure if someone approached the president with a solution he would be open about discussing it. That a decision would be made based on what the web site does or does not do is laughable.
So, I encourage those of you on this committee to act if you seriously want the so-called will of the vote to prevail. This is what you agreed to do--and a huge theme of that summer meeting was to get more individuals involved. What is implied above is that you don't want the obligation to come up with the plans, you just want the board to do it for you. I'm afraid that is not really involvement.
Get in there and be active, don't wait for an invitation. There's room enough at the table for everyone.
Cheers to you!
VERY WELL SAID! AND I AGREE!