• Harsh criticism not framed with constructive reinforcement
• Other

Overall, our issues are with vague and inappropriate feedback; the expectation of positivity and judging against an absence of hope/positivity, which isn’t required of the category; and that the judge went back in long after the round and changed feedback and scores. We wonder who else this happened to and whether they were able to catch it.

1) Overall, commentary is vague and doesn’t seem to explain the deductions.
a) Under “Style of Delivery” the adjudicator said the rhyming in the poetry “cheapened” the poetry and its message. There was no constructive criticism in regard to student’s performance. The critique also seems inappropriate for a high school student to receive.
b) Under “vocal Delivery,” student is commended for dealing with hallway noise and given a 4.
c) Under “conveying meaning” student is prompted to convey hope and given a 4. Her message is about processing trauma, which has always been conveyed in the introductions during practice.
d) Under “phyiscal delivery” student is told “intentional and deliberate” gestures and given a 4.

2) After coaches and student initially viewed the eval (referenced above) through SpeechWire, the PDF was re-downloaded (when it was initially viewed, other teammates’ results were not yet present), and I found a different critique sheet with a lower score of 18. The judge had gone back in and changed scores and feedback well after the round’s completion — at least 30 minutes later.
a) In this version, the judge asks that the intro be delivered in an “impactful and positive” way and deducted another point, seemingly due to desiring positivity.

The referee committee consulted with the WHSFA Director about the uploaded evaluation sheet and then the second uploaded evaluation sheet. The WHSFA Director was attempting to provide more efficient feedback to students and released the first evaluation form. The second evaluation form was edited by the adjudicator to be more specific with comments. The committee believes that in the second evaluation, the student performer received very good feedback on areas of strengths and areas that need improvement; however, the score was different than the first. We agreed that it is devastating for anyone to see one score and then see another score that is lower. Therefore, in good faith we recommend restoring 2 points back to the total as was on the original evaluation that the student saw. The evaluation should contain scores of “4” in all categories.
WHSFA will look at this incident as a educational one for all of us as we deal with enhancing our processes for coaches, student performers, and adjudicators.