First
Diversity Recruitment and
Retention
in Debate Ideafest
Edited by Gordon R.
Mitchell
University of Pittsburgh
Published by Office of
the Dean
University of Pittsburgh
Ideafest convened at
Emory University
Atlanta, GA
June 10-11, 1997
Small Group Work
Melissa Wade: Generally, I hate
conferences; there's not enough action and follow through. This should be our focus today. One good thing about yesterday was that
we had criticism, and people reacting with pride of authorship, and being
comfortable about that. I thought
Ede's presentation was very courageous because he did not present a success. In fact, throwing money at the problem
did not help. He was inspiring
because he demonstrated that other factors came to the fore as being as
important as money (good teachers, organization of participants, etc.) and that
we all have to learn through trial and error until we get it right. Second, Gordon's comments about the
"transformative potential" of debate and the fact that we need to
think through the "justifications" for advancing the case for debate
directly led to Will Baker's deconstruction of his own program last night. Now it would be good to focus on a
transformative product. It's
important to be critical. Some
think we should be doing LD. Some
in the UDL don't do policy debate.
I think we can learn from each other as critics. Let's use this session to deconstruct
our own models. I was inspired by
Will Baker, who stayed up half the night last night rethinking his own program.
Problem Brainstorming Group I
Claudie
Fanning, Linda Collier, Krsna Tibbs,
Chris
Wheatley, Paula Nettles, Carrie Crenshaw
* Problems involving
lack of resources:
Lack of monetary resources restricts travel,
limits compensation for teachers, and precludes development of a community
support structure.
* Problems related to
making it in the high school teachers' interest to do debate:
Lack of compensation and intense time
demands discourage many teachers.
There can also be discouragement because of a lack of initial
competitive success, especially if one program dominates in a particular region
of debate. The entry barriers are
significant for teachers new to debate.
* Problems stemming from
lack of marketing / management skills:
Institutional inertia plays a major
role. It is important to overcome
this inertia of the way we have always done things. Also important for media coverage.
* Other miscellaneous
problems:
Free speech restrictions on teachers, lack
of role-models, difficulties of balancing time of college student volunteers.
Problem Brainstorming Group II
Greg
Blankinship, Mike Edmonds, Laura Heider, Karla Leeper,
Chris Lundberg, Les Lynn, Gordon
Mitchell, Tuna Snider
* Problems with coaching
at the high school level:
When a coach is brought in from the outside,
it is difficult to develop and retain teachers within the school and continuity
of the program is jeopardized.
Teachers are overworked; it is difficult to clear space for attention to
debate. The viability of programs
on a high school level is a big question mark because of the heavy teaching
load. In Chicago, the easy part
was selling the concept to the Board of Education; the difficult part was
bringing teachers into the program.
School boards are generally hesitant to pay for full-time coaches. There is a myth that all high school
debate coaches do is coach debate.
New teachers who might be interested in debate don't know who to call
for information and support. Personal hyper-competitiveness results
in skewed reward systems.
* Problems with the
sports model:
Selling debate as a sport prefigures the
method of evaluation for the activity; success becomes quickly equated with
competitive performance. This
results in a less stable foundation for the debate program (compared to more
academically-based justifications).
* Problems with
participant homogeneity:
There is a distinct lack of diversity at the
highest levels of competition, especially among national-level coaches. The fanatical emphasis on competitive
success in NDT competition is part of the problem contributing to the lack of
diversity. There is also a lack of
diversity in high school institute staffs.
* Problems with
underutilization of the political potential of alumni:
There is enormous power in the capabilities
of high-level national-circuit performers on the collegiate level; the problem
is that when these debaters graduate, the power tends to dissipate and there is
no structure to unite them in a common vision of extending and nurturing
debate.
* Problems with debate
in rural areas:
Travel distance increases costs. Small number of schools makes it
difficult to organize competitive events.
* Problems with
top-level competition on the national debate circuit:
The Cold War mentality of bankrupting the
competition by outspending other schools leads to the formation of an
unreachable elite. Top performers
often lack the ability to adapt / speak to public audiences.
Solution Brainstorming Group I
Claudie
Fanning, Linda Collier, Krsna Tibbs,
Chris
Wheatley, Paula Nettles, Carrie Crenshaw
* Fundamental
assumptions behind solutions:
Expand programs, include more people with
geographic targeting to schools with predominantly minority students. Monetary support, community support
structure.
* Creation of
non-monetary rewards for debate as a solution:
Trophies--many awards for students,
credentials (e.g. in-service programs), top-down approval of efforts (e.g.
school board support), letters of acknowledgment for high school coaches, banquet
at which the school president presents a "certificate" as part of an
awards assembly. Student
representatives could vote on a coach of the year award or a judging award. There could be other kinds of awards
such as individual schools' "service awards" for parents.
* Solutions geared to
increase involvement of teachers:
Talk with principals to find out who are the
key motivated teachers. Also, more
former debaters are becoming coaches.
Create a new coach packet to help answer the "So, you've been assigned
to the debate team" question.
Make the packet accessible, practical and motivating. Increase student motivation by making
tournament travel a reward.
In-service training can be provided for new teachers learning about
debate, but it should NOT be on weekends and it should be during regular
in-service time (i.e. off days).
Such training sessions could be run at each team's institutions. Included in the program could be: a
diversity component, a certificate, college credit, staff development credit,
teachers debating themselves.
* Curricular solutions:
Include debate as a component of foreign
language classes, include debate as a unit in English classes, require debate
classes for graduation, include middle school, give performing arts
credit for debate participation.
* Other possible
solutions:
Make personal contact through lunches,
letters, and phone calls. Do
outreach to immigrants as an "acculturation" benefit. Target on-campus clubs (e.g. "multi-cultural
club"), make a community service component for college debaters, work
within existing high school debate organizations (Chris says "co-opt
L-D"). Increase student
representation in leagues (e.g. CEDA).
Get community coaches involved.
Generate a list of contact people (e.g. volunteers) in order to
facilitate networking. Establish
internet websites connected to each other. Establish a city coaches league, hold a workshop where
coaches can share ideas and information, as part of an in-service day. Get universities and higher
administration types (e.g. university president) to solicit participation from
high school debaters, since debaters are good candidates for college
students. Do community outreach
using cable programs, public forum debates, and PTA debates. Do a mentoring program among high
school coaches. Have existing
experienced coaches work with teachers new to debate. Coordinate communication about professional development
opportunities (e.g. scholarships available to teachers and students at
workshops that are part of in-service or mentoring).
Solution Brainstorming Group II
Greg
Blankinship, Mike Edmonds, Laura Heider, Karla Leeper,
Chris Lundberg, Les Lynn, Gordon
Mitchell, Tuna Snider
* Curriculum-based
solutions:
Give college debaters credit for working
with high schools. Create a
syllabus and make it available.
Another way that many of the problems involved in high school coaching
could be addressed would be to work debate instruction into the existing
curriculum. Because school boards
can often be unwieldy when it comes to curriculum issues, perhaps the best way
to accomplish this is to go directly to the teachers. It would be wise to help schools and teachers use debate as
a method in their regular classes as a way to make it easier to later start
debate teams. Such efforts might
be leveraged by creating a national certification program that could establish
training protocols and standards, and provide high school teachers with a
professional reward structure.
* Finding solutions in
co-operative debate circuits:
Get the "New Coach/Program"
packets from CEDA, NFL, and all 50 state HS associations, then merge it into a
really good one and make it available to all. This packet should include a
video that helps people "sell debate" to administrations, parents,
etc. Solicit student input on
recruitment / retention problems.
While it may be difficult to establish a full-time coach for each
school, one solution might be the creation of "circuit-riding"
coaches, who would travel to multiple schools each week to coach several
teams. This solution may be
particularly appropriate for rural areas.
* Potential solutions initiated by
national organizations (CEDA / NDT):
Creation of a national debate promotion
coordinator to help new program, at-risk programs, etc. Establishment of an emergency
"cavalry" to be dispatched when programs are in jeopardy of being
terminated. Develop links with
regional organizations such as Americorps, Boys and Girls clubs, etc., to
expand range of first points of contact.
Problem / Solution Brainstorming Group III
Beth
Breger, George Ziegelmueller, Rob Tucker, John Meany,
Ede
Warner, Shawn Whalen
George
Ziegelmueller:
It is important to establish a permanent program; establish continuity; involve
local leadership and improve teacher retention---the university is not a
substitute for effective local or school administration of the program.
Rob
Tucker:
This is a mode of criticism (from George) that relates to some program models
and not to others.
George
Ziegelmueller:
It is applicable to any programs hoping to establish long-term success; one
also needs to work with multiple schools to avoid the limitations of the Daniel
Webster Project approach.
Beth
Breger:
How is it possible to sustain growth and the momentum of programs and establish
necessary resources and local financial support?
Ede
Warner:
Marketing needs to be included as an element in every program
Rob
Tucker:
90% of the administrative time spent in the Daniel Webster Project is for
fundraising.
Ede
Warner:
It is important to establish matching funds programs.
Beth
Breger:
It is important that programs are self-sustaining for a reason; OSI will offer
initial support but there is difficulty providing much support beyond one-two
years.
George
Ziegelmueller:
There must be a local person associated with institutional fundraising.
Rob
Tucker:
It has been easy for the Daniel Webster Project to raise money.
Beth
Breger:
Does the Daniel Webster Project have in-kind support? The cost per child is high in the Daniel Webster Project.
Shawn
Whalen:
How is it possible to fund or support an entire league?
George
Ziegelmueller:
It is necessary to have seed money which can be used to establish programs,
then increase fundraising efforts; these efforts must be coordinated with
regional and local high school forensic organizations.
Shawn
Whalen:
There is an additional difficulty---time constraints for coaches.
John
Meany:
There are additional difficulties as well, particularly the culture of
competitive communities perceiving non-competitive activities as a zero-sum
tradeoff with commitment to competitive success.
George
Ziegelmueller:
Debate must recognize that urban programs can be viable programs.
Rob
Tucker:
It is important to go to individuals in campus leadership positions and include
them in the support structure for the program.
Ede
Warner:
The university must be seen as a site for change and resistance to
business-as-usual for marginalized populations.
George
Ziegelmueller:
As high school teachers gain confidence in practice, it is possible to create a
local supportive community.
Beth
Breger:
It is necessary to create indigenous leadership within the high
school
community.
George
Ziegelmueller:
There are different cultural issues among local communities that include issues
of the role of women and tournament scheduling, for example, among the Hispanic
and Islamic communities in Michigan.
Shawn
Whalen:
The culture of exclusion is a significant issue as is the problematic nature of
the competitive culture in intercollegiate debate, i.e., will coaches devote
the time required for urban programs?
Rob
Tucker:
We need an ecosphere of alternate possibilities; how does one walk the fine
line between excellence in intercollegiate programs and exclusion for anyone
who might undermine that success?
George
Ziegelmueller:
[As a program director] one needs to identify goals and determine issues of
inclusion and exclusion; the intercollegiate national tournament circuit is
overemphasized; What sort of training are we trying to provide for students?
The goal of critical thinking and public advocacy, and it is necessary to have
both, rather than the latter alone, is to make sure that both sides of an issue
are presented; the meeting here (Ideafest) is a very liberal group and seems to
focus on outcome-based advocacy; debate must include critical thinking and
'learning to learn'---it cannot be public advocacy that claims to right
'wrongs'; people need to be told how to figure things out for themselves---this
is the foundation for excellence; it is not telling people, via public
advocacy, what is right and wrong.
Ede
Warner:
One can send students to high school institutes and use them as coaches to
teach novices.
George
Ziegelmueller:
It is hard to do both public audience debate and competitive programs
simultaneously; one would have to work overtime to prepare for public debates
because it is a full-time commitment for a competitive program; some public
issues can be debated in the high school settings---these will teach many of
the skills associated with critical thinking.
Ede
Warner:
The goal needs to be exposure to significant events and opportunity; high
school students need to see the importance of issues in the context of
opportunities for participation in worthwhile and different activities-they
need opportunities that reveal possible futures, chances 'down the road';
debate, including tournament participation, is internship and job training; the
focus should be on long-term, as well as short-term goals.
George
Ziegelmueller:
One needs to work with high school people in this task.
Rob
Tucker:
The goal of the Webster program is to create an appealing program such that
high school students want to participate.
George
Ziegelmueller:
Part of the problem at the college level is that success is exclusively defined
by success on the national circuit.
Rob
Tucker:
One should try to get high school students to debate in front of top college
coaches.
Beth
Breger:
Debate should be a means to an end; exposure to opportunity, via debate, is
important.
Shawn
Whalen:
Everyone starts participation in debate without a sense of where it will lead;
skill development for other endeavors is an essential element of debate
practice.
George
Ziegelmueller:
Debate can be a tool to break down stereotypes and serve as a bridge for
communities.
Rob
Tucker:
Perhaps there are opportunities for some program cooperation, for example,
tournament directors could waive entry fees for outreach teams.
John
Meany:
It is essential to broaden the base of intercollegiate participation to provide
judges, mentors for outreach programs; there are too few debaters and coaches
to sustain dramatically increased high school policy debate participation in
some regions.
Ede
Warner:
We must broaden the base of participation and the long-term growth of outreach
programs. There is fear, on the part of college program directors, that rapid
growth of outreach programs would stretch or eliminate their own resources that
are needed for their students; this fear, the potential restriction on
competitive success and tournament opportunities for college students, might
limit the potential of outreach programs, making them small and isolated.
Beth
Breger:
That is why we want and need high school role models; we need high school
teachers and administrators to take students on the road and draw people in to
debate programs; it is necessary to institutionalize role school teachers and
administrators to take students on the road and draw people in to debate
programs; it is necessary to institutionalize role models in the high school
community.
Shawn
Whalen:
We need an established infrastructure that can provide information and training
to other communities to expand new programs.
Rob
Tucker:
It is important for colleges to provide release time for debate.
Shawn
Whalen:
Any design of a program should be portable; effective programs should be
modeled.
Ede
Warner:
Programs that are limited in size and quality are always portable; there should
be controls for quality as well.
Shawn
Whalen:
Perhaps we need a more limited vision for the initial establishment of programs
with step-by-step guides and instructional materials.
Ede
Warner:
Programs must be supported with comprehensive and salient materials.
Shawn
Whalen:
In addition to instructional materials, it is important to share information
about successes and be able to relate like circumstances and problems;
important to be able to get answers to questions.
Ede
Warner:
The problem associated with debate involves the marketing of the product.
Rob
Tucker:
I have spent hundreds of hours creating fundraising templates.
Ede
Warner:
It might be necessary to disconnect the academy from debate; OSI might help, by
providing internships for a civilian debate force.
Rob
Tucker:
Students and faculty can do outreach programs for community service classes and
job requirements; the Daniel Webster Project will try to use money as a lever
to try to get tenure-track positions in communications departments.
Shawn
Whalen:
Only large, public institutions are likely to provide release time and
assistantships or internships for community service; these are not realistic
for the majority of programs.
Ede
Warner: We need a state of debate report that
considers these opportunities for release time and additional positions for
outreach programs.
Shawn
Whalen:
Few students have time to commit to community projects if they are serious
students and also involved in intercollegiate debate; an increasing number of
students from marginalized populations, many of whom have a strong spirit of
volunteerism to assist students in their own or like communities, also must
work to afford to attend college; there are real limits on the number of
students available for outreach and limits on the amount of time that
interested students can spend.
Rob
Tucker:
One could establish a program, modeled on the Peace Corps, that would return a
number of graduating students to communities for outreach efforts.
Beth
Breger:
There needs to be some consolidation of models, some interchangeability, if
they are to be truly portable and expandable.
Rob
Tucker:
One could have multiple programs.
Shawn
Whalen:
Programs would be isolated and ineffective without consolidation of models;
multiple models will not work to share information and effectively expand
programs in the short-term.
Rob
Tucker:
The Daniel Webster Project is a program that is setting the infrastructure in
place; the question is how to integrate the Daniel Webster Project and urban
debate leagues, for example, have Daniel Webster programs and urban debate
leagues in the same region; if there is quality in the Americorps for Debate
idea (Peace Corps model for outreach), then try that instructional model for
the same region.
Shawn
Whalen:
It is more important to increase the number of participating students in a
region than to concentrate resources at a single site; it is necessary to have
multiple schools involved in a region.
Ede
Warner:
Experienced personnel can each manage a number of schools, for example, a
single person might manage five schools; this is the way to construct an
all-county or citywide project in the short-term.
Rob
Tucker:
You could have a competition at each school to see which student could be named
the Daniel Webster scholar at each of the urban debate league sites; this way
the urban debate leagues could feed into the Webster selected sites.
Ede
Warner:
We need to stop the focus on a single school; every student at every school
should have the opportunity to compete.
Shawn
Whalen:
The important issue is how each school provides a full debate program to its
students, not how it becomes a Webster site; there is no reason to keep the
structural concept of the Webster Project unless it provides more opportunities
for students to participate.
Beth
Breger:
There must be teacher training in the schools; we cannot rely on outside
instruction.
Rob
Tucker:
One could use student retention rates as a financial hook to get additional
involvement of teachers (match stipends to student participation and
retention).
Beth
Breger:
In New York city, teachers wanted to send the best students to participate and
administrators wanted to send the best teachers; they should send participants
who want to learn and are self-motivated.
Rob
Tucker:
I think that money could improve retention but I am trying to figure out the
ecosystem of program interactions.
Beth
Breger:
We need to increase local funding and increase the number of participants; we
need teachers to accommodate the long-term needs of the program.
Ede
Warner:
What are the criteria for that kind of program?
Beth
Breger:
Debate in underserved communities; the components include good university-high
school relations, mentoring, outreach, contact with boards of education and
other administrators, contact with school officials and parents, recognition of
the possibilities for effective debate in the area and integration with area
debate events, essentially the extant UDL model.