ACTDU Adjudicator Accreditation Policy- 2008

Introduction: This policy replaces previous accreditation and complaint arrangements for the ACT Debating Union. All previous adjudicators are still accredited under the new regime.

Part 1- Accreditation Process

Part 2- Review of Adjudicator Performance

Part 3- Complaints Process

Accreditations will be primarily conducted by the ACTDU Adjudications Officer. The Adjudications Officer shall be an independent, well respected, committed and senior adjudicator. There will also be a list of Adjudicators generated by the committee who are competent to accredit new adjudicators, but who should only be asked to accredit new adjudicators by themselves where there is no alternative. Where there is an alternative these alternative accreditation officers should accredit or reaccredit adjudicators on a panel with other senior adjudicators. The Adjudications Officer shall be qualified to accredit any adjudicator without assistance.

The Adjudication Core shall consist of the President, the Adjudications Officer, the Training Officer & the Coaching Officer.

Part 1- Accreditation Process

Basic Accreditation:

Candidates wishing to be accredited should contact the President or a Duty Officer and arrange a time at a round of debating to be accredited. An adjudicator will be accredited at ACTDU to adjudicate any given debate when s/he:

- has attended an ACTDU adjudicator’s training seminar;
- has sat in on one round of debates adjudicated by an adjudicator who is competent to accredit them; and
- has presented a satisfactory ‘shadow adjudication’ for one debate to said adjudicator.

· A candidate may ask the Duty Officer for an alternative tester, however this alternative tester must be on the list of certified accrediting adjudicators, and must not have a clear conflict of interest with the applicant (i.e. close personal relationship, family member, etc).

· A candidate who fails to be accredited may reapply at a future round.

Secondary Accreditation:

An adjudicator who has completed “secondary accreditation” is not necessarily more qualified or more skilled than an adjudicator who has received only basic accreditation. However, adjudicators are encouraged to seek intermediate accreditation because this sort of “hands on” observation of an adjudicator will allow the adjudication core to form a more in-depth opinion of the adjudicator in question. An adjudicator will have successfully undergone secondary accreditation when s/he:

- has adjudicated for one year as an ACTDU adjudicator; and
- has adjudicated a round of debates with an accreditation level adjudicator present, and that accrediting adjudicator is satisfied with the adjudications delivered.

- Lastly, the adjudicator in question must complete a written examination, to be provided by the accreditation adjudicators.

Re-accreditation:

An ACTDU accredited adjudicator must be reaccredited before adjudicating further debates if:

· They have not adjudicated an ACTDU debate for 3 years and they had not already obtained a level 2 ranking under the previous system of accreditation; or if

· The Adjudications Core has requested that they be re-accredited.

Guidelines for accreditation of Adjudicators:

Basic Accreditation:

A ‘shadow adjudication’ must include a result and an analysis of the debate explaining the result. A satisfactory shadow adjudication should identify the key issues of the debate, the key features that distinguished the two teams and should include an explanation as to why those features were decisive in the debate. Consequently, for a shadow adjudication to be satisfactory, it is not sufficient that the adjudicator get the same result as the senior adjudicator. Likewise, for the shadow adjudication to be unsatisfactory, it is not sufficient that the adjudicator get a different result from the senior adjudicator.

Secondary Accreditation:

A satisfactory adjudication should meet the following criteria.

- The adjudication should be well structured (that is, it should be thematic, should identify the key issues in the debate and should be well-timed).

- The adjudication should give more than one reason for the result and the reasons given should be clear and pertinent.

- The adjudication should include suggestions for how the debaters have improved their speeches.

Part 2- Review of Adjudicator Performance

Once an adjudicator is accredited the ACTDU will begin a process of gradually reviewing and assessing the performance of their adjudicators. There will also be a continual process of assessment for all active adjudicators at the ACTDU. This process will include:

· Periodic Re-accreditation as noted above

· Secondary Accreditation

· Consistent evaluation of adjudicators by the Adjudication Core & peer review

· Feedback sheets from schools

The adjudications core will use the above method of evaluation to assess and evaluate adjudicators on a periodic basis. Among other functions, the Adjudications Core shall generate a list of senior adjudicators who are competent to accredit other adjudicators in the absence of the adjudications officer. The Adjudications Core will come to this list through a process of consensus.

Part 3- Complaints Process

The ACTDU takes complaints very seriously, so schools, students, adjudicators, parents and other parties should exercise caution when making complaints, and with this in mind they should not be made for frivolous reasons. If a school, adjudicator or team is dissatisfied with a particular aspect of the decision or conduct of the Adjudicator or Adjudicators for their debate, the first stage of the complaint process is the school or team in question raising their concerns unofficially with either the Duty Officer/s involved, the President or the Adjudications Officer. Complaints should NOT be made directly to parties involved, and ACTDU will treat harassment or abuse of their volunteers and adjudicators very seriously.

If you are still unsatisfied with the manner in which these concerns have been dealt with, or believe the complaints are of sufficient seriousness to warrant further action, then the parties in question may make an official complaint.

Official Complaints:

Step 1: Teams wishing to make an official complaint will provide ACTDU with a written statement outlining the basis for the complaint, which can be done via e-mail to; the Duty Officer in question, the President or the Adjudications Officer. This complaint will be forwarded in confidence to the Adjudications Officer. This statement should be detailed but need not be more than one page long. Reasons will need to be substantiated i.e. 'incorrect decision' alone will not suffice, but rather an explanation of precisely what issues the adjudicator failed to account for will have to be provided. Teams will be permitted to append to this any supplementary evidence, including testimony from parents in written form, but are encouraged to make their submissions as concise as possible.

Step 2: The Adjudications Officer will personally oversee an ACTDU investigation of the decision which will include interviews with the adjudicator and possibly the relevant contact person at the school.

Step 3: After a period of consideration no longer than one week from when the complaint was lodged the Adjudications Officer (or in their absence, the President) will provide you with a report on the incident and whether the complaint was of sufficient merit to take action. In the event that the complaint is dismissed a complete list of reasons will be provided and the Adjudications Officer (or President) will be available for further contact if you wish to disagree with the decision.

It is extremely unlikely that the adjudicators’ decision in regards to the outcome of a debate will be overturned, even if a complaint is found to have merit. Debates being somewhat subjective, there is no way for the ACTDU to put themselves in the room and alter the result at the cost of the other team. However we can still look at taking action with regards to the conduct in question for future debates.