I think DJ's idea for a season-long sweepstakes award would be a great way to increase in-state participation. It is something that could easily be worked into the State Tournament awards presentation, and would be something that would definitely please school administrations at least. A suitably neat prize would also be a great encouragement to debaters.

Like previous posters, I agree that the problem is not with travel per se, but with lack of enough high-quality competition at a lot of tournaments on the local circuit. A sweepstakes award would at least help to eliminate situations where debaters fail to attend a local tournament even when they're not traveling.

I think we should try to avoid the question of whether particular styles/formats/etc. best train students in lifelong skills, not because it isn't a worthy discussion but because there seems to be an unsolvable diversity of opinions on the subject. Certainly some coaches/students/judges perceive that the benefits that come from a longer season which spends some time on the national circuit to be worth the added time, effort, and expense involved. Others feel differently and choose different formats, season schedules, etc. There is nothing wrong with there being a diversity of approaches within the community, because everyone is looking for something different out of the experience. That is not to say that we should not attempt to address concerns as a community, but simply that we shouldn't do so by trying to force everyone into a particular model of the forensics experience. So, my argument above is not that any particular style/format is objectively the most educational, but simply that students/judges/coaches should be free to make their own judgments about that. Just acknowledging that travel can have educational benefits doesn't require us to set the access/quality balance at any certain point.

More importantly, I really think we can address this issue without having a strongly top-down mandate-focused approach. Trying to figure out what style and format is the best will only deadlock us, because what is best is different for everyone. Less heavy-handed measures than the travel ban, many of which have been suggested on the thread, would go a long way and are probably things everyone can get behind. The Pete/Aneesh plan does an excellent job of addressing the underlying concerns of the travel ban but still permiting individual programs to exercise some autonomy about the experience they want for their students. A number of the other additional proposals do the same.

I also want to throw my support behind the season-long sweepstakes idea. When I competed in High School, the concept of a team State Championship was a huge impetus to work hard and probably the single most enjoyable part of the forensics experience. It also helps coaches who want to preach a team-oriented philosophy, which can really generate a rewarding experience for students. Team state championships also have cascading effects on recruitment and administration support.

I'm content to stay a curious observer to this whole thing but just a quick question: If I'm not wrong (which is entirely possible) isn't the MSHSL meeting before the MDTA's general membership meeting? Since Cort if offering, is there any value to talking before the MSHSL meets or do you all (whoever that is, who would know) think that there will be a decision made or discussed at that meeting?) and if it is only a discussion should the MDTA speak as a united front then or wait?

I'm less concerned about the solution, I'll leave that to smarter people than me to hash out (plus taking sides between my mom and my new boss seems like a bad plan) but I think we should come to an agreement on a course of action, if any. I guess what I'm saying is that I'm in favor of a meeting prior to the MSHSL meeting to discuss this in detail.

I will probably end up posting this reply to the Facebook group that's been formed after posting it here, but I wanted to give a couple of caveats first. 

1. My job is to represent the interests of the Minnesota Urban Debate League, its schools, and its students, and I take that job incredibly seriously.  To that extent, I am not objective.  Not that I think anyone really is, but I feel pretty strongly about this situation and wanted it to be known.

2. I believe that decisions about debate schedules should be made with the interest of the students at the middle to the bottom of the bracket, and not the students who will be there at the end of the tournament.  I believe I've been pretty consistent about this over the years, and I think that it means that decisions about travel schedules, tournament times, fundraising, etc., should all be made with that perspective in mind.  This is one of the primary reasons that I believe that high school students should not be in charge of dictating travel schedules.

With that in mind, my thoughts on the matter are thus: while I'm not exactly sure what travel schedules should be, and there is room for a lot of latitude from school to school with different perspectives and obligations, to the extent that there's a trade-off, the MDTA should foster the increase in participation numbers rather than the increase in participant quality.  If that means that some compromise needs to be met that involves travel incentives, so be it.

Some assorted thoughts in support:

1.  The Kansas Example:  The Kansas travel ban has been in existence for at least the past fifteen years, probably decades longer.  When I was in high school (at the ever so prestigious Shawnee Mission East, thanks Pete), it was 150 miles, from any point on the Kansas border.  That number was raised to 300 miles a couple years after that, and to 500 miles a couple years after that.  There is also a tournament limit, which caps the number of tournaments a student may attend, including NFL qualifiers but not state.  Should the student qualify to nationals, they receive additional tournaments. This, combined with teaching certification in debate and debate classes, means that there are approximately 80 billion high school debaters in Kansas.  While not all of them win the TOC, they're doing pretty good in both long term and short term success.  Take, for instance, the fact that the current NDT champions both debated in Kansas in high school, doing no national travel.  I personally believe that there are a couple of factors that Minnesota could emulate that would make this type of success more possible:
a. An incredibly strong community norm in favor of the state tournament and a willingness to follow the KSHSAA guidelines.  I think that this norm has been weakening in recent years, and has led to a few teams skipping the state tournament in favor of national travel.  Some pushback by high schools has been effective in returning those students to following the guidelines, but I suppose it is always true that some will flaunt community norms, however strong.
b. A willingness to limit the cost of in-state travel.  This is one area that Minnesota has GOT to pay attention to.  One of the reasons that so many programs can exist and succeed in Kansas is because of the low cost of in-state travel.  This occurs because schools limit their fundraising abilities at hosted tournaments and find other mechanisms to make money.  So long as Minnesota high schools are primarily making their budgets off of OTHER high school teams, we will forever be driving up the cost of attending tournaments everywhere, making it even harder for teams who don't want to travel out of state go to any tournaments at all.  I think that a collective agreement to make tournaments inexpensive for participants in all regards would go a long way. (This probably wouldn't apply to tournaments like Blake, which pay hotel fees and have catering numbers to get in.  This is a much larger discussion, probably, which I am willing to have, but will save for if anyone else is interested.)

There is no question that very few Kansas debaters win the TOC.  They do win the NDT, though, with amazing frequency, which counts for something, especially given the hugely larger volume of them competing. 

2. Resource disparities: The UDL represents a lot of the students with fewer resources, but we by no means exhaust the list of students in the state who have limited resources.  In the current economic climate, especially, debate needs to be able to argue that it provides an educational opportunity unavailable in other circumstances to students who need it.  Arguing for unfettered access to as much out of state travel as anyone wants is probably the most likely way to convince the MSHSL that we are in need of serious regulation.  While it is not feasible that debate itself solve all resource disparity problems, there are a number of pro-active steps the MDTA could take, tournament and/or travel restrictions being a couple.  I haven't thought through the Pete/Aneesh proposal, though my first inclination is that it makes sense as a first step.  I'm not sure how much it actually decreases travel, but if it were done by school and people made a good faith effort to follow the spirit, I could see where it would be good.  I also totally agree that incentives for in-state travel make sense, especially when combined with sweepstakes trophies and maybe even alternative formats.

What I don't understand is the hesitance at mandates somehow being always bad.   The job of every individual director at a program is, first and foremost, to advocate on behalf of their students.  I would never question that.  The reason for organizations like the MDTA is that every director looking out for her/his students is unlikely to produce the best outcome for the group as a whole.  While individual students might not be benefitted by any particular proposal, the goal should be to benefit the vast majority of students, not the one kid who misses a trip to Greenhill.  We are abdicating our responsibility to debate and its continued existence if we do otherwise.

I don't know about all of the other schools involved in the "continued decline" of debate participation numbers.  I do know this: next year, the MNUDL will add 2-3 more middle school programs, who will do a modified policy debate format on the high school topic all year.  We will endeavor to get all 7 of our high schools to the section tournament, which would increase participations, as 3 did not do so last year.  We will work on adding capacity, getting more schools involved, and training anyone who wants to come on how to coach or judge policy debate.  We will probably begin holding an expanded UDL tournament schedule, with weeknight tournaments throughout first semester, Friday/Saturday split tournament schedules, and provided meals.  Anyone who wants is welcome to join us (provided judging is covered, and potentially some nominal fee for the cost of food).  It might not be as exciting as trips to exotic locales, but it's the best way I know how to get more kids involved in debate.

Kate Baxter-Kauf
MNUDL Program Coordinator

PS: I couldn't figure out how to log into my MDTA account on this computer, so I set up a new one.  I am so sorry if this causes trouble to anyone at the MDTA in regards to membership or something.

The next regularly-scheduled MDTA general membership meeting will be in September, I'm not yet certain precisely when, but before CTAM.  The next MSHSL board meeting will be in August.  My understanding is that extension of the sports travel restrictions to fine arts is not on the agenda for that meeting, and thus no such extension will come from the meeting.  The next MSHSL board meeting after that is in October.  While it is possible that some action could take place at that meeting, it seems unlikely at this time, and we would receive ample notice that a proposal was on the table.  We have received assurances that no action will be taken without a chance for interested groups like MDTA to provide input. 

Again, this does not mean that we cannot have a special meeting if there is sufficient support for it--but at least so far I haven't heard enough to make me think that we have to act before the normal September meeting.  I'm keeping my mind open to that possibility, though. 

Cool. That being the case, I retract my suggestion!

First:  Katie is really smart.  Everyone should listen to her.

Second, there are a lot of things that one can learn from Kansas debate, and travel is only a small part of the lesson.  Teaching and certification issues are also important.  But . . . um . . . well, I was going to respond to Trevors post, but I won't.  Trevor, read Cort and Katie's posts again.  They already made my arguments for me.

Third, I think taking time to think this over is appropriate, and I see no need to rush into anything.

Finally, and this is very important; probably the most important item:   outreach and diversity are the most important goals here.  We should all think about those goals and do what we can to achieve those goals. 

Joe

 Some thoughts, I suppose:

First, I don't think limiting travel will have much of any impact on the "rich" schools winning more debates. A main reason for this is that if you take away the ability to travel from teams, that money can go to other things, like hiring even more coaches, providing financial aid for camp, etc.

Second, at least in policy, I don't feel like there is a huge issue with needing to force people to stay home and debate on the local circuit. Were there any tournaments that were barren because of travel? I think losing a couple of teams (Not even squads, just individual teams) per week is not a huge loss to the community. In fact, removing those couple of top teams would even make competition better for the "the students at the middle to the bottom of the bracket"  because they get to debate more equal competition and there are less anti-educational face-crush rounds occurring.

Third, I think some sort of positive incentive like the MDTA cup is leaps and bounds better than sanctions and preventing some students from achieving their full debating potential. It also will create a lot less resentment, while achieving nearly the same result.

Fourth, I don't think limiting squads to a tournament (Under the 4 tournament pete/aneesh suggestion. Edit: I mean individual debaters should have it count against them if they go, not count against their whole squad) is a good idea. This creates weird scenarios for teams with primarily one type of debate, but maybe a debater or team in some other format. Also, it would take an entire team spot if a top debater went to a round robin or something like MBA where only 1 team per school can go. 

Finally, Marquette has a traveling tournament. A very well run one, that is fairly cheap. If more Minnesota teams went (This year I think had the most ever, with Edina, Wayzata, and Mankato West) perhaps the tournament would grow even quicker. Its certainly not a solution to our problems, but more top level tournaments within a one-state range is certainly a good thing for all schools.

My experience is of a slow to medium speed degradation of a number of [what I thought were] useful norms in the MN HS debate community.  Argument limitations for novices existed via social contract and were enforced via social sanction.  Those have all but evaporated.  The community norm of reserving October for 1-day tournaments disappeared with the movement of the Raspberry Bowl to October.  I am not only not hesitant about the need for rules with consequences, I think that it would be the only way to make any change at all.  The value of that change is debatable; some folks chafe at the thought of any restrictions at all, whereas others won't be happy as long as we still have two-day tournaments.  My sense is that our collective ability to follow norms, without questioning to death what the norms are and to whom they apply, is not as good as it used to be.

Feel free to complain behind my back about my views of novice debate and the tournament schedule, as I am not trying to hijack a debate about process with those substantive views.  They are just examples.  My point is that we should prefer enforceable rules, because the norms don't last and then we are right back here having the same conversation all over again.  And by 'we,' I am of course inferring that my status as a debate widow makes me a stakeholder.

I actually looked at a few local tournaments to see which teams attended which tournaments.  To determine the validity of your claim, I looked at the presence of the eight teams that were in quarterfinals at the State tournament (since the State tournament results are the least arbitrary way to define the top teams).  The absences of these teams were not as miniscule as you said they were.  For example:

Bloomington Jefferson - 1/8 teams

Hopkins - 4/8 teams
Sibley - 3/8 teams
Concordia - 3/8 teams
Cap City - 3/8 teams

The Rosemount Round Robin was not taken into consideration because many of the teams I took into consideration were invited to it and therefore attended.  Similarly, the U of M tournament was not considered for this same reason.

I am missing a few other local tournaments (like Cooper and Eagan) because, ironically, I was traveling out-of-state on the weekends of both of those tournaments and therefore do not have the results for them.  But, based on what little data I have, local competition is not as competitive as you are making it out to be.  So, while this is not an argument for or against a restriction on travel, it is an argument that local competition could (and should) indeed be strengthened.

I agree that we should be providing more incentives for people to compete locally regardless of what happens with the travel ban.

 I honestly think one of the biggest problems is the quality of the local tournaments, especially the tournaments at the beginning of the season.  The fact that a lot of these tournaments offer 3-4 rounds with no elims is a large factor in the lack of participation from more comparative debaters. Showing up on a Saturday to debate In a tournaments that will inevitably in something like an eight way tie for first to be broken based on who got judges were more generous with speaks is not very appealing to many debaters. I know that we do not want to overwhelm novices early on but why is having a real tournament for varsity not feasible? I know the U of M added an extra day for varsity debaters to its tournament.

Also, I think judging at a lot of local tournaments is a big problem as well. Now having parents in the pool is not the worst thing in the world but it is a problem when schools use them no because they have to but because coaches are unwilling to judge themselves. This happens way to often. There are many coaches who either do not show up to locals at all or who pawn off their judging obligations to parents or less experienced judges. Not only does that make the tournament less appealing but it also sends the message that the adults in the community do not value these tournaments and if the adults do not signal they are important kids will not think they are important.

Basically if we want to have a vibrant local circuit then we should start acting like it. I can’t speak for policy but I know in LD the local tournaments that make an effort to provided a sufficient amount of rounds with quality judging did see significant participation from debaters who are usually thought of as “circuit debaters.” The U of M, Hopkins and Highland park tournaments are good examples of that.

 This is a great example of making statistics say what you want them to, Krishnan. Lets look at what other national circuit tournaments people may have been attending on those weekends, or more logically, what testing was going on.

Jefferson: No national circuit tournament. People just didn't go. SAT was on that day. Perhaps not the reason everyone didn't go, but a possibility for sure.

Hopkins: PSAT. MEA. Done. It never has as robust of an attendance as other tournaments, because it has to compete with those two things. The fact that 4/8 came is better than in past years. St Marks was also that weekend, but only took 2 Minnesota teams away if i recall correctly.

Sibley: ACT. I had it that weekend, as did lots of other seniors that were in the Novice judging pool that weekend. Trevor has already made the correct point that people really like Sibley and go out of their way to do the challenge tournament.

Concordia: Its essentially a traveling tournament. Also, Minneapple is that weekend in LD/Pofo, hurting squads that have to split.  Also, that tournament still was REALLY good. The teams that broke were all pretty much the best in the state. USC was that weekend I believe, taking away Eden Prairie only.

Cap City: You might have a point here. Thats it. However, obviously HP JK were working the tournament, taking away one of the possible state teams. Glenbrooks being the next week probably has a lot to do with this. Plus with Concordia/USC and Iowa Caucus the two weekends before that, I'm sure some teams at least took it for a break. It seems like aside from you and Noah, the teams that went to Concordia and HP seemed to be different.

For the most part, I think you miss the point. Even without a few of the top teams on these weekends, those were still very good tournaments. If anything, we should clearly ban the ACT/SAT/PSAT as its ruining debate way more than traveling tournaments. Also no 4 day weekends in October, those hurt debate too.

It's pretty easy to look at the results packets from the MDTA website for a picture of LD participation in local tournaments.  Minnesota had 9 LDers at TOC this year.  Of those 9, the number attending those local tournaments that posted results packets on this site are:

Jefferson - 2

UMN / Blaine - 3

Hopkins- 3 (St. Marks conflict)

Sibley/Austin - 1

Eagan - 1

Minneapple (TOC bid tournament) - 7 (and the two missing were the AV debaters)

HP / Forest Lake - 4

Cooper - 0 (Glenbrooks conflict)

Eight of the nine participated in sections.  All eight qualified to state, and seven of those eight broke at state.

I'm posting this for Francesca Parente:

LD participation is actually better than that. There were four debaters at the U of M, and five the weekend of HP/Flake (four at HP and one at Flake).

However, only seven of the eight qualified to state, because Jack was sick the second day and dropped. All seven that qualified to state broke.

Entry and competitive barriers will constrain participation. PERIOD

Out of state travel is a competitive barrier. If there was no competitive benefit to be gained from doing, why do so many people sacrifice their weekends to hang out in Iowa? Programs (students and coaches) are placed in a position where either they forgo a competitive advantage, or sacrifice other things they could do (social activities, family time, etc.)

Anecdotes about debaters who traveled only in-state but still succeeded by some measure prove little. The behavior of 'top' programs and debaters proves that there is a reason to travel to 'big' tournaments, and it is not to enjoy the corn fields.

Other entry barriers include, but are certainly not limited to:

* two-day tournaments for novices (and others)

* judging/community norms that reward teams who use "approved" camp arguments

* access to expert coaching

* access to convenient transportation that does not involve leaving for Eagan at 5:45a

Are all entry barriers bad? Probably not. Should we strive for 'no limits' on who competes? Probably not. The fact remains, though, that things like rewarding out-of-state travel discourage participation. Counterplans (sweepstakes, travel limits) can solve a lot of that, but we should not ignore that the link exists.

dch

PS: Bricker/Johnson getting better at debate probably proves that there is a competitive benefit to traveling outside of a local circuit :P

 II’ll be honest, I’ve read the thread but I don’t really understand what’s going on here. A travel ban may have some advantages for resource lacking schools, but the upshot of such a ban is overwhelmingly negative for programs that view traveling as a hugely important part of their program.  An alternative to a ban on travel that promotes giving resources to the community (i.e. the MDTA camp scholarship that was established this year) is a good idea.  Obviously no one contests that.  I just don’t know why the solution to an inequality problem is a negative action to bring others “down” to match programs without resources.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for a compromise that improves the local scene, but it would be ridiculous to concede a lot of ground in a compromise when the other side has few unique advantages to offer.  So in that sense I really don’t understand why everyone making good arguments about why limiting travel is bad (Pete/Aneesh/Adam) is so willing to accept a numerical limit on out of state travel.

Like Pete said, debate is not a game on a baseball diamond.  We don’t travel to Florida in the Winter to prep arguments because it’s easier to do in the sun.  Yes, there are inequalities between schools, absolutely correct, but applying a travel ban does nothing to rectify that for the debate community specifically.  Teams bring ideas back to the state from out of state – if those ideas get used and are beneficial, they can be modeled immediately.  If anything, out of state travel prevents MN from becoming ideologically closed off to alternative forms of argument, and promotes innovation by bringing more ideas into the game.

With regards to a coaching arms race:  this only addresses the fact that some teams cannot travel, and doesn’t explain why travel means local programs are at a huge disadvantage because of travel (same problem as above). Big debate machines will still have lots of coaches – or at the very least enough coaches to match other programs regardless of their travel plans.  Also, I’m not sure why those teams who fall behind in the arms race are significantly hurt (assuming there is a disadvantage at all).  Maybe you take the weekend of Dowling off because you have one less coach.  Is the inability to travel to 1 or 2 fewer out of state tournaments a reason to impose a community norm limiting travel?  Pete, it seems like the beginning of your post answers the end of it.

Andy:  Yes there is life after debate, and yes there is probably a limit on the post-debate-life real world education.  I’m not sure why that means there should be a limit on travel/how many tournaments kids go to.  There is a limit on how good you can get at basketball, but if kids enjoy it, why not give them more moments to soak up what they really like doing?  The fact that there’s an educational cap on benefits from debate doesn’t seem to justify limiting it when you can still enjoy it post-cap.

That’s what I see as the biggest disadvantage for the travel ban.  Why should kids/programs who want to invest a lot of time in the activity have to say: “Sorry, game over, the travel ban has kicked in!”  So I agree with Adam in that regard:  if kids want to compete, they should be allowed to.  Also, what about bid hunting?  Michelle got her bid at the last invitational of the season, Fresca at the last two.  They were still motivated to go to the ToC even after their earlier efforts in the season netted them no bids.  Their desire to compete did not die out, but a travel ban would tell them that they’ve had their opportunity, and now it’s time to quit.  Both of them were in the top 30 at the ToC, and invested a lot of time in their careers attempting to qualify.  Can someone tell me why it’s okay to tell those students that their goals should be subject to a travel ban that offers a miniscule benefit to equality?  For students like Michelle and Fresca, who put a lot of stock into the local scene and the national scene, they are forced to make a terrible choice:  work hard to compete at ToC, or work hard to compete in state.  That forced choice shouldn’t exist.

Few other things:

DJ, what are the 25 programs that have left the LD scene?  And how do you attribute this to ToC travel?

Theis, you need learn to use both spell check and hypocrisy check.  You can point fingers at those who are not offering “quality tournaments” just as much as they can point fingers at you for not showing up, and complaining about a lack of quality local tournaments (which is false, btdubs) is a fairly ridiculous way to get local programs to agree with you.  You got judges that aren't A's/hacks in your mind on the national circuit, live with it.

It’s odd writing about this because I feel like I agree with what most of you are saying about improving the local community.  There should be a sweepstakes.  There should be SOME requirement for in state competition, but the travel ban just is not the answer.

Regardless, Amanda Bryan and I will be writing up a petition in the next few days and I hope we can get some community support on rejecting a travel ban.  No one knows what the MDTA or the MSHSL are going to do, they may not do anything and the petition may not influence them, but I think it would be a huge mistake (for those against a ban) to resign ourselves to that reality.  I'd love some input on it from the community, and in no way is the petition meant to be divisive, just a signal to the MDTA how many people truly reject the idea of a ban.

Just so I am clear, you are circulating a petition to oppose an action they have not even proposed?  Are you at all concerned that taking such an intractible and inward-looking position will make you look more in need of regulation rather than less?

How does that make us look like we need more regulation if we notify the MDTA we are against it?  Also, at this point I don't believe this issue is completely off the radar.  And yes, I fully understand nothing has been proposed, which I why I said it may not change anything, but why does that matter?  I'd rather intervene early and let people know how many people oppose a ban instead of delaying.

I'm with Meg on this one...and I'm not quite sure what circulating a petition will do. Essentially, you'll be stating your opinion and seeing if others agree. The same debate will happen at the membership meeting and IF any vote is needed, it will be officially done at a MDTA meeting.