Coaches’ Poll: Does the High School Policy Community Need One?
This article was originally published in the December 2012 edition of the Rostrum.
The high school Policy Debate community has a new indicator of success called Impact Ranks (ImpactRanks.com). Josh Clark started this coaches’ poll in October. By its very nature, the debate community is already hypercompetitive. So does the high school debate community need another barometer of competition?
“Need” is a strong word, but maybe a new coaches’ poll will add fun and prompt more active community discussions about what makes a particular Policy team “one of the top 25 in the United States.” Throughout this article, I will review the primary pros and cons of the new coaches’ poll, as well as give directors and teachers ideas on how to incorporate this poll into the classroom.
Pros
Fun. Coaches’ polls are fun because they gives coaches an opportunity to reflect on what makes a “good” Policy Debate team on the national circuit in a way that forces more subtle distinctions and judgment calls. Deciding which team deserves to be more highly ranked between two teams that just won a major national tournament requires nuanced critical thinking. This thought process may help coaches develop a better understanding of what it means to be a nationally ranked team, fine-tuning a coach’s ability to consider his/her own curriculum at practices and in class.
Public relations benefits. The general public is familiar with the concept of the coaches’ poll since these surveys are done in sports. This familiarity makes it easier to rally one’s administration behind the poll. To be able to walk in and tell your principal, headmaster, vice principal of student activities, president, superintendent, etc., that your team is currently ranked in the top 25 in the country in a national coaches’ poll, is a powerful public relations instrument. It can be a way to attract attention within the school as well as get press from your local newspapers. Helping your administration and broader community get excited about your team is part of every director’s job.
Incentive for wider spectatorship. Since it is an easily accessible ranking system, students and coaches may be encouraged to watch more teams so they can solidify why they think a team is better than another one in the rankings. In an activity that can be insular, where teams are increasingly leaving tournaments before they can even complete competing in the finals, I think that adding an additional incentive to vie for the top spot because rankings are completed immediately after each octofinals bid level tournament, might be a positive motivator.
Cons
Ranking high school students is bad. The rankings are referring to high school student performances. Students can have sensitive egos and may get discouraged seeing their place slide down the rankings after a less-than-stellar performance at a tournament. Also, Josh Clark, the person behind Impact Ranks, has made it clear that any team may opt out of being ranked altogether. If a coach feels that the process may negatively affect a student’s state of mind, s/he may email Clark and ask him to remove the team from the rankings.
Judges will vote the list. Coaches and judges reading these rankings may feel pressured to vote on “rep” instead of arguments in the debate. This issue is not new, but publishing a list may exacerbate perceptions that there is a static list of “dominant teams.” Additionally, directors and assistant coaches are extremely busy. Most coaches do not have the time to see all the teams that they might consider in the top 25. As a result, coaches may just default entirely or partially to the prior lists, meaning they will use past rankings to create their list instead of independently arriving at their own conclusions. This practice may unintentionally inflate reputations of teams, skewing judging perceptions even more.
Regional bias. Coaches are more likely to rank teams from their region higher than those that are not from their area. If a coach consistently judges the same teams, then those teams are more likely to play prominently in their mind while completing the rankings. If coaches from the Northeast inordinately supply rankings, then the teams from the Northeast are more likely to be represented in the poll. The fewer the number of coaches participating, the more likely the poll is skewed in favor of a particular area.
Coaches’ Poll as a Teaching Tool
The only way to check potential cons is to get more team directors and assistant coaches involved in the process. Teach students to think critically about why teams are ranked the way they are. Instead of disregarding it as a tool of competitive excess, consider how you can use it as a demonstration of subjective decision-making. Understanding the poll as a living, breathing entity that does not represent a monolithic list of dominant teams is necessary to enjoy the benefits of this poll while downgrading the potential problems. What does this mean in practice? In preparing for tournaments, I would not use a coaches’ poll to determine what teams require specific case negatives, because it is much more important to have your teams individually rank their opponents in a way that matches their skills, not a generic list. I also would not focus on the poll as a sign of success or failure for the students. Instead, I would acknowledge the accolades from other coaches, but make it clear that, ultimately, it is a subjective poll indicative of past performances, not predictive of future decisions. Impact Ranks adds a new element of good-natured competition to the community. The only way to minimize the skewed rankings is to get many different people in the community involved. It will only be meaningful if many Policy coaches get involved in the rankings. As usual, it is up to individual coaches and students whether it will develop as a positive or unnecessary tool.
Christina Tallungan is the Director of Debate at Notre Dame High School in Sherman Oaks, California.