Bobby Hawthorne
Academics Director
The wild card is a cool idea. I agree with it philosophically and was willing to tolerate a measure of turmoil and lots of phone calls and emails to see it implemented because it allows 700 or 800 deserving competitors to advance to region and perhaps to State, just like in football and basketball.
But I was wholly unprepared for the trauma many of us faced following the second district week because the people charged with running district meets could not, did not or would not read or count correctly.
I wrote that on the Wednesday following the second district academic week. I’ve calmed down since.
Granted, some of the confusion was of my own making. In the contest results form in the Spring Meet Handbook, we failed to insert a line for the fourth place team member. We also forgot to add the fourth team member to the list of medal recipients.
Our goof, and we apologize.
But the problems we faced during the week after the second district week had little to do with either. Though we’re in the second year of the wild card, and though wild card information is littered through the Spring Meet Handbook and the Constitution and Contest Rules, a number of district meet directors, administrators and other officials claimed they’d never heard of it or the 5 p.m. Monday deadline. Consequently, they submitted their district results a day late, or two, or three, which meant that students from their district -- though not necessarily their school -- were ineligible for the wild card. As much as possible, we held firm to the Monday deadline.
Consequently, we received several bitter phone calls and e-mails from coaches and students, lamenting how a rival school had cost them the chance to advance to region. District nerves already tweaked by natural rivalry were pinched sore. It could be a tad chilly at the next district organizational meeting.
Advice for 2004: don’t ask the one school in your district that doesn’t have a track to host the district track meet. Apply that philosophy across the board. 4-member teams
We learned a lot in this first year of 4-member teams, but here’s what gave us the biggest headaches:
* Science teams.
They wanted to advance all six members. We never intended them to advance all six and don’t allow it. This is spelled out on page 89 of the C&CR (I) Team Competition -- Four members of the winning team will advance to the next higher level of competition.
We’ll further clarify it in the 2003-04 C&CR.
* Team substitutions.
A school may make only one substitution per team. If the school has a four-member team, and two members cannot attend, that school must drop out and notify the alternate team, or it may drop one member, substitute for the other and compete as a three-member team. For example:
Team: Bob, Bill, Joe, Don
Joe and Don can’t attend regional meet.
School drops Don.
School then substitutes Mary for Joe.
Team then becomes Bob, Bill and Mary
A team may not compete with fewer than three members. Thus:
Team: Bob, Bill, Joe, Don
Joe and Don can’t attend regional meet.
School has no one to replace Joe or Don.
Team drops out.
Alternate team is called.
We should have anticipated these problems. We didn’t. We apologize for the confusion.
Team tie-breakers
Though none vetoed the original proposal to allow 4- member teams to advance, several regions complained that the number of students advancing is straining their physical limits. This summer, the Academic Committee of the Legislative Council will entertain proposals to instigate tie-breakers in all team events except computer science and spelling and vocabulary, which have tiebreakers already in place.
Currently, ties for team scores are not to be broken. All teams tied for first place shall advance to the next higher level and there is no alternate team. All teams tied for second shall receive alternate ranking.
Under our proposal, if at the district or regional meet two or more teams vying for first place have the same team score, first place shall be awarded to the team with the highest score of the fourth-place team member.
Should two or more contestants who are the fourth-place team members have the same score, then a team tie will be declared and all teams involved in the tie shall advance. For purposes of the tie breaker, a team without a fourth member will use a score of zero for the fourth-place member’s score. This should encourage schools to enter 4-member teams.
At the State Meet, no tie breaking procedure will be used for teams in any place. If two first place awards are made based on a declared tie, there will be no second place, etc. The committee meets June 10 in Austin. Details are available on the UIL website. Conflicts
The TAKS-Academic State Meet conflict was unnecessarily complicated and confusing. We apologize for this. (This is my first 4-apology column, ever.) I have been aware of this conflict since December, 2001 and waited, and waited and waited for the matter to resolve itself, inasmuch as we were assured repeatedly that TEA had always allowed and would again allow students competing in UIL post-district competitions some wiggle room insofar as when they could take their state mandated tests.
In January, we received a memo stating that TEA "would allow school districts to make necessary changes to calendar test dates that would accommodate students participating in extracurricular activities scheduled beyond the districts’ control." It promised more details to come.
In February, TEA posted further instructions on its web site. We were never notified. Consequently, the week after regional meet was a frantic effort to determine what districts needed to do to comply with TEA rules while allowing their State Meet qualifiers to compete in Austin. As I’m writing this now, I’m still not satisfied that schools have received a consistent or workable response. Little wonder why many schools choose to bring their kids to state and count them as absent on the day of TAKS test.
Of course, some ask us why we couldn’t move State Meet. Here’s why:
The first two weeks of March: state basketball tournaments.
Mid-March: UT Spring Break and CX state tournament.
Next week: District academic week I.
Next week: District academic week II.
Next week: District athletic week I.
Next week: District athletic week II.
Next week: Region academic meet.
Next week: Region athletic meet.
Next week: State Academic Meet
Next week: State Athletic meets.
Next week: UT Graduation, and nothing’s held on the UT campus during the week of graduation except graduation.
Next week: high school graduations statewide.
This doesn’t account for Easter, proms, IB and AP testing and the dozens of other activities and competitions scheduled each spring. I suppose we could move State Academic Meet to the Memorial Day weekend, but then we’d have to compete with the massive UIL state solo/ensemble competition.
If anyone has suggestions, send them along.
Penny wise
I do not envy school boards and administrators who are trying to stretch limited funds over ever-widening sweeps of educational territory. But I urge them to think twice before slashing or eliminating funds for UIL academic competition and ultimately withdrawing from the district academic meet.
Of course, I believe schools should reduce funding for any student extracurricular activity only as a last resort. But cutting funding for academic competition is especially unwise. UIL academic contests are an educational bargain. They provide many of the best gifted and talented programs available. They teach all the same character traits -- discipline, motivation, leadership, teamwork, perseverance, sacrifice, sportsmanship -- that society says it wants in its young people. They develop the intellectual qualities -- writing and speaking skills, problem solving, and creative and critical thinking -- that universities and employers covet most.
Inasmuch as the most expensive item on the UIL High School Academic Study Materials order form costs $25 (and it’s a massive CX debate kit), I can think of nothing more short-sighted than to balance the school budget at the expense of your best and brightest young minds.