Putting it all in context

[BigW]

1 hour ago, momrod2000 said:

It's not right to tell those younger members who are talented and dedicated enough to succeed at the top levels of this activity that they are part of the problem

Truth. I knew a fellow who was 16-17 marching the last couple of seasons in DCI WC, and also did DCA. A very, very squared away gentleman regardless of their age.

 

Keep in mind when corps take these individuals, they're usually taking this already into consideration. They're usually looking closely at the psychological makeup of that person to see if they're squared away enough to handle the various challenges the tour brings, not just whether they can cut the drill and play the chart or spin well enough. There have been  quite a few instances over the past 20-30 years where some of these younger folks have been told they can cut it on the musical end but to find opportunities where they can develop their maturity then return.

[xandandl]

1 hour ago, BigW said:

You have a point. Even at work, friends have come up to me and asked what corps are okay for their son or daughter to go to. There were a couple I warned them on for certain reasons, some I felt would be a better fit for their child (more welcoming to younger members or less talented rookies for instance-maybe certain staff members would really relate to that individual well), some were unknowns where I told them they had to do some looking into and ask hard questions, or I'd have to poke around for them and ask people I knew.

 

I think here though, we're looking at providing some basic standards of what would be thought of as acceptable service?

 

-Kids get good nutrition, not stuff like the infamous 'cookie salad' one WC corps got in the late 70's early 80's. Don't need filet wrapped in bacon served by a Brazilian cowboy, I know this can be done for not a ton of money by someone who plans, thinks things through and has the knowledge

 

-Buses are structurally and mechanically solid, can pass  the yearly PA state inspection for instance...

 

-Staff passes at least the equivalent of PA Act 151 (A rather detailed Child Abuse check)... Staff also knows how to behave and conduct themselves as professionals, (I could care less about any 'formal' education, just act right!) and if they don't, management either straightens out and develops the staff member or shows them the boot

 

-Corps has certain things clearly spelled out in the contract what the member can expect from the corps as well as what the corps can expect from them...

 

I'm prolly missing quite  a few things. Is it a start? Go from there, help me out.

I stick by what I stated in response further down from the post you noted as TimK and I dialogued on this:

 

It could be subcaptions of:  Financial Stability   Care of Membership  Quality of Instruction  Retention of Membership Annually  etc., etc.  No more than a half dozen categories needed.

Educational institutions on all levels, financial institutions, and even governments (using bond ratings and such) all have accreditation standards. I have served on committees for the DoE federal blue star rating for schools, Middle States evaluation for Junior High and Secondary Schools, and for assessing campus ministries and such activities. No matter how good the institution being evaluated, we always find something to work on. We're dealing with humans who are never perfect but hopefully can be growing. Ditto with drum corps.  

Dr. David Kampshoerer of the LaCrosse Blue Stars, Gayle Royer of Santa Clara, George Bonfiglio of 27th Lancers, all professional educators, used to do the visit, rate and report evaluations when corps applied for inclusion in the DCI tour. Over the years as others assumed that mantle, the emphasis went heavily to the financial side. Grandpa Dan (Acheson) became the friendly voice to speak confidently to the mms about what was going on...just as he did this summer several times with Cadets; he relates very well with the mms, having been a Madison Scout and corps director for Glassmen before his appointment as DCI CEO.  I think we need more of this, not less.

Add to this a subcaption of Stability (meaning turnover) and depth of administration. That's 5 subcaptions I have given, your transportation safety makes 6. Housing viability might be 7. By housing I mean sites for winter camps; organization/safety/suitability of Spring Training site(s) and nightly sites for tour sleep and practice.

Edited August 29, 2018 by xandandl

[garfield]

15 minutes ago, xandandl said:

I stick by what I stated in response further down from the post you noted as TimK and I dialogued on this:

 

It could be subcaptions of:  Financial Stability   Care of Membership  Quality of Instruction  Retention of Membership Annually  etc., etc.  No more than a half dozen categories needed.

Educational institutions on all levels, financial institutions, and even governments (using bond ratings and such) all have accreditation standards. I have served on committees for the DoE federal blue star rating for schools, Middle States evaluation for Junior High and Secondary Schools, and for assessing campus ministries and such activities. No matter how good the institution being evaluated, we always find something to work on. We're dealing with humans who are never perfect but hopefully can be growing. Ditto with drum corps.  

Dr. David Kampshoerer of the LaCrosse Blue Stars, Gayle Royer of Santa Clara, George Bonfiglio of 27th Lancers, all professional educators, used to the visit, rate and report evaluations when corps applied for inclusion in the DCI tour. Over the years as others assumed that mantle, the emphasis went heavily to the financial side. Grandpa Dan (Acheson) became the friendly voice to speak confidently to the mms about what was going on...just as he did this summer several times with Cadets; he relates very well with the mms, having been a Madison Scout and corps director for Glassmen before his appointment as DCI CEO.  I think we need more of this, not less.

Add to this a subcaption of Stability (meaning turnover) and depth of administration. That's 5 subcaptions I have given, your transportation safety makes 6. Housing viability might be 7. By housing I mean sites for winter camps; organization/safety/suitability of Spring Training site(s) and nightly sites for tour sleep and practice.

"Captions" and "Sub-captions".

Brilliant marketing of a grading system now mostly understood by MMs and their teachers/parents.

Really smart and a fabulous basis for a relative grading system.

Edited August 29, 2018 by garfield
spelling...geesh

[Jeff Ream]

21 hours ago, mfrontz said:

What in the name of all that is good and holy does competitive placement and whether or not a corps is world class or open class have anything to do with not covering up sexual abuse or having procedures in place to make sure that offenders don't get hired in the first place? 

Sheesh.

because it's DCP

[Liahona]

6 hours ago, momrod2000 said:

Believe it or not, there were under 18's on the field during Final Retreat at the DCI World Championships this year.  What would you tell those marching members?  You're too young to do this? You can't compete at this level until you're older?  Grandfather them?

There are plenty of years left to march in the world-class division given the parameters I suggested.  I said I would not be OPPOSED to age divisions and didn't call for age division to come to pass.

DCI is a YOUTH activity and has been known as JUNIOR drum and bugle corps for decades.  I would not be opposed though to TWO separate AGE CLASSES with the following age restrictions.

Age 14 to 17 (Open Class)

Age 18 to 21 (World Class)

AND YES if there were TWO divisions for age distinction I would say that those members are TOO YOUNG for that division.  Age restrictions are made all the time in other activities.  No grandfathering clauses. The new rules would just need to be followed. This has nothing to do with talent, but child welfare and safety concerns.  

I've heard a few people say this would "hurt" the activity, but little has been provided in rebuttal of WHY it would hurt the activity.  Hurt feelings of a 17 year old who is told that they can't march world class for another year is not a good enough reason IMO.

[Jeff Ream]

6 hours ago, Liahona said:

There are plenty of years left to march in the world-class division given the parameters I suggested.  I said I would not be OPPOSED to age divisions and didn't call for age division to come to pass.

DCI is a YOUTH activity and has been known as JUNIOR drum and bugle corps for decades.  I would not be opposed though to TWO separate AGE CLASSES with the following age restrictions.

Age 14 to 17 (Open Class)

Age 18 to 21 (World Class)

AND YES if there were TWO divisions for age distinction I would say that those members are TOO YOUNG for that division.  Age restrictions are made all the time in other activities.  No grandfathering clauses. The new rules would just need to be followed. This has nothing to do with talent, but child welfare and safety concerns.  

I've heard a few people say this would "hurt" the activity, but little has been provided in rebuttal of WHY it would hurt the activity.  Hurt feelings of a 17 year old who is told that they can't march world class for another year is not a good enough reason IMO.

safety of the members should be paramount regardless of the age

[Jeff Ream]

6 hours ago, Liahona said:

There are plenty of years left to march in the world-class division given the parameters I suggested.  I said I would not be OPPOSED to age divisions and didn't call for age division to come to pass.

DCI is a YOUTH activity and has been known as JUNIOR drum and bugle corps for decades.  I would not be opposed though to TWO separate AGE CLASSES with the following age restrictions.

Age 14 to 17 (Open Class)

Age 18 to 21 (World Class)

AND YES if there were TWO divisions for age distinction I would say that those members are TOO YOUNG for that division.  Age restrictions are made all the time in other activities.  No grandfathering clauses. The new rules would just need to be followed. This has nothing to do with talent, but child welfare and safety concerns.  

I've heard a few people say this would "hurt" the activity, but little has been provided in rebuttal of WHY it would hurt the activity.  Hurt feelings of a 17 year old who is told that they can't march world class for another year is not a good enough reason IMO.

the insinuation is there would need to be 2 sets of rules....one for open and one for world. and to be 10000% honest, open is probably less financially able to have an even extra higher burden of rules to follow. Those are the corps already struggling for staff and volunteers because it's not as glamorous in Open as it is in World. 

[momrod2000]

13 hours ago, Liahona said:

AND YES if there were TWO divisions for age distinction I would say that those members are TOO YOUNG for that division.  Age restrictions are made all the time in other activities.  No grandfathering clauses. The new rules would just need to be followed. This has nothing to do with talent, but child welfare and safety concerns.  

I've heard a few people say this would "hurt" the activity, but little has been provided in rebuttal of WHY it would hurt the activity.  Hurt feelings of a 17 year old who is told that they can't march world class for another year is not a good enough reason IMO.

How would having separate age groups prevent predators?

Having separate age groups is not the answer.
1.  This is saying that it's the victim's fault because of his/her age.  The victim is NEVER at fault.  NEVER.  EVER.
2.  DCI says there can be no sexual contact between staff and marching members regardless of age.  It doesn't matter if the staff member and the marching member are both 22.  It is against the rules.  Period.
3.  DCI says there can be no sexual contact between a marching member who is over 18 with a marching member who is under 18.

I was there during the webinar that every corps was required to attend.  #2 and #3 above were clearly spelled out in no uncertain terms.  What is and what is not harassment were the focus of the questions the panel received.  However,  it was clearly stated - no relationships between staff & marching members and no physical relationships between those who are 18 or older with those who are 18 and younger.  No ambiguity.

How would this hurt the activity?

1.  It would give the implication that the problem is the marching members instead of the predators.
2.  It would exclude some of the most talented youth.  Those who have already had success in World Class will not go back to marching Open Class.  Asking them to do so is an insult. (see #1 above).  Marching members should NOT be punished because staff don't/can't/won't act professionally.
3. It would give the impression that that type of activity between staff and marching members is acceptable in World Class.

Again, no matter the victim's age, no matter the victim's gender, the victim is NEVER EVER at fault.  NEVER!!!!!!  
 

Edited August 30, 2018 by momrod2000
grammar

[Liahona]

17 minutes ago, momrod2000 said:

How would having separate age groups prevent predators?

Having separate age groups is not the answer.
1.  This is saying that it's the victim's fault because of his/her age.  The victim is NEVER at fault.  NEVER.  EVER.
2.  DCI says there can be no sexual contact between staff and marching members regardless of age.  It doesn't matter if the staff member and the marching member are both 22.  It is against the rules.  Period.
3.  DCI says there can be no sexual contact between a marching member who is over 18 with a marching member who is under 18.

I was there during the webinar that every corps was required to attend.  #2 and #3 above were clearly spelled out in no uncertain terms.  What is and what is not harassment were the focus of the questions the panel received.  However,  it was clearly stated - no relationships between staff & marching members and no physical relationships between those who are 18 or older with those who are 18 and younger.  No ambiguity.

How would this hurt the activity?

1.  It would give the implication that the problem is the marching members instead of the predators.
2.  It would exclude some of the most talented youth.  Those who have already had success in World Class will not go back to marching Open Class.  Asking them to do so is an insult. (see #1 above).  Marching members should NOT be punished because staff don't/can't/won't act professionally.
3. It would give the impression that that type of activity between staff and marching members is acceptable in World Class.

Again, no matter the victim's age, no matter the victim's gender, the victim is NEVER EVER at fault.  NEVER!!!!!!  
 

It's grammar btw...not "grammer".

I'm not sure what tangent or what plane you are on...never implied anything you have said above dealing with age restrictions...especially victim fault.

[momrod2000]

2 minutes ago, Liahona said:

It's grammar btw...not "grammer".

I'm not sure what tangent or what plane you are on...never implied anything you have said above dealing with age restrictions...especially victim fault.

Fixed the spelling error - not enough caffeine yet.  

If you are not implying that the victim's age is a factor, then what is the purpose of a minimum age for World Class or a lower maximum age for Open Class?  As I stated, an under 18 year old who has already experienced success in World Class will not march Open Class.  And setting a maximum age of 17 for Open Class will essentially age out many marching members at 17.  Just like there are marching members who are younger than 18 in World Class, there are marching members who are older than 17 in Open Class.