The MSHSL just passed a resolution limiting travel to 600 miles round trip.  The article I read only referenced sports, so we'll have to wait for the official minutes to see if it applies to speech and debate (unless somebody knows something).

On Channel 9:

"Now, fully in the name of equality, it was brought up today the idea that if they're going to limit sports trips out of state for practice or games, maybe they should be doing the same thing for fine arts.  Meaning speech, debate and band.  They brought it up today, but say they're going to discuss it more fully come August."

http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/dpp/sports/Changes_to_HS_Sports_in_the_Name_of_Statewide_Fairness_june_08_2009

If for some reason the MSHSL decided to unfairly limit the trips for debate/speech teams, would it even be enforceable? Would there be any consequences outside of not being able to participate at sections/state for violations of the rule? If not, then I don't feel like the rule would have much of an effect in debate, as I know plenty of other debaters who would be willing to give up those two tournaments to enjoy the competition of out of state tournaments.

Aside from that though, I feel like the logic behind this resolution is backwards. Why punish schools that are just better at handling their resources and funding out of state ventures? While that may accomplish the goal of "equalizing the field," it brings everyone down to a lower level as opposed to bringing up the disadvantaged to the level of the successful. Sure, some schools have less resources, but banning travel isn't the solution. Regardless, doesn't the class system solve these inequalities in the status quo? I.e. smaller schools with less resources are in A while larger schools are in AA, etc.

Is there any way to petition the MSHSL or influence them in any way to not include debate/speech under this resolution?

While we may not like it, I feel there would be the teams who might decide the take the route of abandoning the MSHSL state tournament in favor of the TOC/NFLs/NDCA. The state tournament as it is right now is a great tournament in terms of competition. For the past 4-5 years I've been in debate, I don't remember many teams deciding they just didn't want to go to state. Teams work hard and take pride in it. But if you force a choice between that and the TOC, what would happen?

The tournaments a 600 mile limit ROUND TRIP would exclude pretty much every tournament other than the Iowa tournaments, and depending on how far north your suburb was, it might not fall in there (google maps says Edina to Cedar Rapids is about 275 miles).

Another thing to consider is what would be the punishment for violating the rule? Would a specific set of debaters be ineligible for state? Would the entire squad? Would the school itself be punishable (I believe Kansas has this)?

I know this discussion has happened before, I'm not sure whether it was on this board or the old one, but it's 2 AM so I am too lazy to search now, I'll look for it later and link it here if I find it.

The Fox 9 story (If it's on TV, it must be true) indicated that the unfairness came from Spring sports like baseball traveling to warmer climates and getting in extra practice.  Debate is done indoors.  So this rule should not translate to debate.

Trevor, your assumption that this is just about "punish[ing] schools that are just better at handling their resources and funding out of state ventures" is inaccurate.  There are real resource inequalities; and although people can take steps to reduce those inequalities, they can't eliminate them.  Edina operates on a different plane than Mpls North.  The level of resource disparity is staggering.  The ability to travel is one benefit that accrues to Edina as a result of that resource disparity.

Peter, that applies to your argument as well.  Debate teams that travel to top level national tournaments outside of the MN season benefit tremendously.  It is no different from baseball in that regard.  AV, Eagan, Edina, Wayzata, etc. benefit from that advantage.

I'll add one more advantage:  it would make the season more liveable, increase the number of people who could compete and coach and make it easier to field programs in the area.

Now, that does not mean that I support the travel ban.  It simply means that I acknowledge that the ban would have an advantage.  This argument cannot and should not be resolved by denying that there is any reason for the ban.  I would acknowledge the reasons for the ban (which are, in my view, competitive equity and a more liveable season) and then analyze whether there is any other way to achieve those advantages, and whether they are outweighed by disadvantages (reduced quality of debate in the area, missed opportunities, etc.)  In debate terms, I would not simply run defense against the advantage; I would run a counterplan and DAs that applied to the plan but not the CP.  (p.s.  I make proposals like this in legal meetings too.  People think I'm strange.  I guess that's a fair observation.)

A striking aspect of this discussion, at least in my opinion, is our failure to address this issue ourselves.  To my knowledge, the MDTA has never had a serious discussion about limiting the season or travel.  Wouldn't it be better for us to debate this issue and decide what we think is the right balance?

Joe

The MDTA has no real teeth.  The "power" it had was not much more than peer pressure to follow the norms. 

It would still be good for us to all get together at one time to talk.

I know it has no teeth, but I respect my colleagues enough to expect them to follow the MDTA's rules if we all agree to do so.   We'd have to agree, of course, but if we did so, I would certainly hope people would live up to their agreement.

And second the notion on getting together.

Joe

Tangential to the question of travel limits, but wow. Great reporting there cheif. 

"It was brought up today" By who? When? What was their rationale? Does "discuss it more fully" mean that someone is going to write a bill, maybe? Or are they just going to chat about it over tea and biscuits?

Thank you fox 9, for doing your sacred duty as journalists to create an informed citizenry. 

So I haven't posted here in a while, but I just saw this report yesterday and was curious of the implications.

I agree with Joe (shock!) that a travel ban has manifest advantages.  I recall a heated debate from about 3 years ago on whether the community could self-impose a travel ban.  The consensus seemed to be (though I disagreed) that it could not because of a prisoner's dilemma type situation.  I tend to believe that the community could succeed solely through a norms based approach.  That said, I think the real danger is that the MSHSL legislates a travel ban that does not recognize the unique features of the debate community, namely:

1. The existence of major National championship tournaments that often are seen as "bigger deals" than the state tournament.  This is not the case for sports.

2. The real possibility of teams "offshoring" in response to regulation--ie teams not competing in the state tournament in order to maintain participate nationally.  This is potentially solved by more extreme retaliation targeted at the school itself, but I don't think anyone wants to see that either.

3. The measurable improvement in quality of competition at national tournaments.  I don't know how true this is now, but when I was competing there were only a handful of "top tier" local teams and all of them valued keeping their skills sharp against national competition.

In short, the real worry for me is that a sweeping travel ban is imposed that impacts debate by way of omission in its design.  I think that the MDTA community should take the temperature of the MSHSL with regards to such a ban and try to make its voice heard in shaping the implementation.  In particular, they should collect some evidence of how these bans are executed in other states and try to determine the implications on participation, quality, etc. 

I think that a set of travel limits with certain exceptions for 1 or 2 "championship" tournaments might actually be good, though I haven't seen enough data or been in the activity recently enough to form a complete opinion on the question.

I imagine such a rule would be more nuanced, but a blanket prohibition on traveling more than 600 miles round trip wouldn't just implicate traditional circuit tournaments. It also means (again, absent some specific exception) that almost all trips to NFL Nationals would violate the rule. The ability to travel outside of the state improves the educational opportunity I'm able to offer my students enormously. If the sanction did not go beyond ineligibility for state and sections, we would have to strongly consider forgoing those tournaments - even though I love them and they are currently a major part of our season.

Insularity is not good for the quality of debate. There are several states whose travel restrictions have negatively impacted the level of local circuit debate; Kansas and North Dakota come to mind. The fact that Minnesota is a prominent member of a national forensics community is good for us. The fact that we are nationally competitive is, at least for my team and me, a source of pride. It is a prominent feature of the way we sell debate to administrators, parents, students, the community, etc. Minnesota's records at Nationals and the TOC is probably second to none. It would be a shame (and I think short-sighted) to give that up.

I support some kind of community response to the prospects of such a ban. We don't need to chain ourselves to a bus or anything, but I think an MDTA resolution outlining the community's objections to such a ban would be appropriate.

Joe is right that we also need to address the underlying concerns behind the ban, which seems principally to be resource disparity. Efforts to do so have not been met with a lot of enthusiasm thus far. For example, we haven't yet been able to get behind case or evidence disclosure even on a voluntary level (although admittedly a voluntary system hasn't been discussed much). That would be an excellent first step. There are a variety of other efforts we could discuss (providing free topic briefs, financially viable camp options, coach mentorship, travel scholarships, making better research resources available on a broader basis such as access to online research databases, reducing tournament fees, etc. etc.) We should also point out that there are forensics events available - PF and Classic come to mind - where local success is less tied to the ability to travel out of state. It should also be noted that we have a number of debaters who compete primarily on a local level who enjoy lots of success. The NFL is also working on an initiative to address some of these issues. In any case, I think that if a reasonable objection to such a policy is raised, and that action is combined with a good faith effort on our part to take some steps towards addressing resource disparity in less draconian ways, such an effort would go a long way.

We are never going to be able to fully level the playing field on issues of resources, at least not without more fundamental change from outside the High School Activities Community. There are better ways to address the issue than a sort of Harrison-Bergeron-style approach, and hopefully this can be the impetus for us to be more proactive about it.

Sorry for the double-post, but one more thing to add to the list of things to consider in terms of how we might address resource disparity.

As a community we could be much more proactive about helping teams to fundraise. Several programs in MN fund a travel season on the national circuit exclusively by fundraising. I understand a number of programs are funded almost entirely by various charitable grants given annually to educational organizations or something like that like. Just sharing fundraising strategies and tips is helpful. Anyway, a more coordinated effort on fundraising would be a positive step.

Joe is correct that the ban has some merit, and to dismiss that merit out of hand is not going to persuade the MSHSL.  An MDTA meeting should address this issue before August.  Furthermore, we should consult with speech, band, quiz bowl, science bowl and Math teams as well.  All of these educational co-curricular activities will potentially be effected by the travel ban. 

While I favor self-imposed (i.e. MDTA) travel limits, the ban proposed by the MSHSL puts a square peg into a round hole.  First, debate is NOT like sports.  Debate is an educational game, as opposed to an athletic game.  Second, the 300 mile limit is arbitrary and won’t solve the savage inequalities in our state educational system.  Those inequalities are part of the real problem. 

While sports do teach students about teamwork, they cannot teach a student about U.S. hegemony, the International Criminal Court, climate change, health care reform, or a whole host of issues that are far more important than when to try a suicide squeeze.  Limiting opportunities for a student to learn about these issues is anti-educational.   

National travel obviously has its costs, which I will get to below.  But national travel does provide unique benefits in that it gives students an opportunity to be judged by top-level debate educators and to compete against the best students in the country.  Furthermore, because debate is played in the brain, and not on the field, it has a trickle down effect that sports cannot realize.  For example, if Eagan High School’s baseball team goes down to Florida when there is still snow on the ground in Minnesota, St. Paul Central’s baseball team gets less practice, and is at an unfair competitive disadvantage.  SPC’s baseball team cannot model Eagan’s because they just can’t afford to do the things that Eagan can.   

However, if say St. Thomas Academy attends Greenhill, Valley, St. Marks, Glenbrooks, MBA, Harvard and the TOC, they may beat everyone in the state of Minnesota, but by doing so they will make the state of Minnesota better.  When STA GP was competing, they raised the game of the rest of the teams in the state.  They introduced new arguments, and demonstrated a more effective style of policy debate.   

Cooper doesn’t travel, and competes well against Apple Valley which has 2 TOC championships to its name.  If we were to prevent STA or AV from traveling, this trickle down effect would be cut off from debate entirely.  Again, restricting this opportunity to learn would be anti-educational, and damage what makes activities like speech, debate, band, and knowledge bowl worthwhile. 

What I find most frustrating about the 300 mile ban, is that it is arbitrary and wouldn’t possibly solve the inequalities that Joe has mentioned.  In the Squo, North likely wouldn’t be able to travel to Valley or Dowling.  The 300 mile ban won’t be felt by Wayzata, Edina or Eagan.  They’ll still be able to go those tournaments, but the ban doesn’t make the North program $2000.00 richer.   

These inequalities will exist regardless of whether the MSHSL acts or not.  In fact, I would be interested to know what competition in the state of Kansas looks like.  I would venture to guess that while there is more debate, schools like Shawnee Mission East and West dominate because they have greater resources than other schools.  The ban would not change the socioeconomic make-up of schools participating in debate, and any attempt to achieve equality of outcome by regulating equality of opportunity is fruitless.  Right now, all forms of debate are dominated by the Twin Cities schools, specifically the suburban schools.  I would bet big money that states like Kansas see the wealthy schools doing better than the non-wealthy schools at debate. 

The livability issue is a harder one.  The squo has resulted in an arms race of travel that runs the risk of burning out coaches.  Travel takes coaches away from their families, makes healthy eating next to impossible, and causes a great deal of stress.  It grinds on the long-term coaches who do not have help. 

If you look at the programs that travel successfully, having a large, responsible coaching staff is an absolute necessity.  Coaches can take weekends off knowing that their cohorts can handle the trip.  Part of the reason SPC is able to travel the way it does is, Baxter, Rocklin and I can share the burden.  For schools that have 1 coach, that is not an option. 

I will be the first to admit that SPC has contributed to the debate arms race, but we are not going to unilaterally disarm.   

Rather than a 300 mile limit, a numerical trip limit should be imposed by the MDTA.  I propose that schools be allowed to travel to tournaments anywhere in the country, but no more than 4 traveling tournaments during the season.  This will allow schools to travel to the competitive national tournaments if they wish, but will stop the arms race of traveling to more and more national tournaments. 

Pete -- I like the idea. 

Need to clarify to grasp the impact: What defines "traveling tournament"?  Would Des Moines, Milwaukee, Fargo, or Souix Falls be a traveling tournament?  Do NFL, CFL, NDCA, and TOC count againt those 4 trips? 

Grant!  Great to hear from you!

I also like Pete's idea; the macro idea (self-regulation better) and micro idea (pick any four tournaments).  The important difference is that it allows debate to craft rules that make sense for our circumstances, instead of imposing rules that make sense for hockey.

Joe

Since the MSHSL ban apparently excludes contiguous states, I think that the MDTA regulation should as well. 

"Traveling tournaments" should mean "any invitational tournament outside of Minnesota or its contiguous states."  I believe that we could say that TOC, NFL, NCFL and NDCA are "post-season" tournaments and do not count against the limits.   

What you're really saying is that out of state travel should be limited to 8, plus whatever happens in Iowa, North Dakota, or South Dakota.  Factor in the contiguous states and now you're looking at traveling to 10 or more tournaments.  Maybe we're definining limited travel differently. 

I would advocate for 4 out of state tournaments, with national touranments and contiguous states included in that number.

I think Pete's proposal is reasonable, and I agree that a meeting before August to address the issue is a good idea. Exempting travel to contiguous states and national championship tournaments is also a very good idea.

Three questions:

1. What form would this measure take? Is it an MDTA resolution, which then is just enforced as a kind of mutual agreement to abide by the terms of the plan? Is it a suggestion that we make to the MSHSL as an alternative to the proposed ban, analogous to the way we propose state tournament rules?

2. Should action on our end be coupled with an MDTA resolution which advises them of the measures we have taken and outlines reasons why we don't believe the ban as currently proposed is appropriate to the fine arts setting?

3. I agree that getting together with other fine arts groups/instructors is important. What is a good way to manage that. Do we encourage colleagues at our own schools to contact the MSHSL, do we invite fine arts colleagues to sign on in support of an MDTA resolution opposing the ban, etc.?

Huh?

The MSHSL has created its own exemption for the contiguous states.  According to the Strib:

The MDTA should not adopt any measure that is more draconian than the MSHSL proposal, since the MSHSL proposal is arbitary and doesn't capture the benefit of national travel. My definition is designed to address the 600 mile rule. 

Debate is different from sports, so any limits on travel must acknowledge that there are macro and micro level benefits to travel.  MSHSL regulates competiion, not education.  In fact, the MSHSL mission statement reads:

Draconian travel bans limit educational opportunities.  My proposal is a functional, but reasonable limit on travel. 

It is amazing what happens when the news media while covering the MSHSL about athletics even mentions speech and debate. I guess not all press is positive press.

First, I would ask that everyone take a breath and relax. Second please know that at best this is a discussion item with the MSHSL it was not even up for that at yesterday's meeting but I am told it came up in response to the athletic travel ban (which makes sense). I have just talked with Jeff Whistler, who is the incoming MSHSL Board President and he said that the league would take no action without our input. So that does put the onus upon us to put together a presentation to preserve the level of travel we wish to enjoy in our activity. He indicates that we would be in better shape if we came to board with a compromise solution rather than simply arguing against the policy without offering solutions. Any proposal we come up with should be complete so if we were to say argue for a travel limitation based upon the number of tournaments we would have to be clear if this were a limitation on the school or on the competitors.

It is my belief that some sort of exemption will be carved out for NFL competition given the long standing relationship between the MSHSL and the NFL. We also enjoy the only endorsement of the National Association of Secondary School Principals for our national tournament so that will play to our benefit when it comes time to persuade the league that Nationals competition is beneficial.

Chris