Re Qual Stds ANA DIAZ' Letter to Editor in 7/18 Chronicle

[rebecca yount]

Hey, all. Ana Diaz wrote a smokin letter to the editor and it was published in this week's Chronicle--in its entirety and the only one this week.

It states SO clearly the problems with the Performance Standards proposal.

[Hazelnut]

Ana E. Diaz, PE wrote a well reasoned article on how the USEF/USDF should contract for a study of specific problems and evaluate stated outcomes to determine the path recognized dressage should take in the USA. Through well defined processes that already exist the USEF/USDF can explore and evaluate alternatives and select long and short term actions which will help bring dressage to the stated desired outcomes.

Great letter. They need to get Ms. Diaz and others like her on a committee to develop a planning process so USEF/USDF is spending their members hard earned money on solutions that will make a real difference.

Thank you Ana and Rebecca for providing continued excellent public input. If there is anything I can do to assist, please let me know.

And thanks to Chronical of the Horse for providing a forum for discussion, both in the magazine and on the web.

[Mardi]

It makes so much sense, that I fear that it will be dimissed by USDF/USEF, just as other intelligent ideas from the general public (many with expertise in certain fields) have been in the past.

Nevertheless, the concept is correct and would so benefit our sport.

Perhaps there's a way we can "rally 'round this flag".

[siegi b.]

Playing devil's advocate, my impression upon reading the letter was that Miss Diaz merely shifted the goal for improvement onto the judges. Doing so will help ensure similar judging across the board, however, it does not necessarily improve the training and performance of US riders (which I think the USDF/EF is trying to do).

I think a letter to the Chronicle of the Horse as well as USEF/USDF outlining a program that would facilitate improvement of US dressage riders WITHOUT resorting to qualifying for the different levels would probably be better received than putting the onus squarely on the judges.

Just my opinon....

[ShotenStar]

Siegi

the two goals (improve judging consistency and improve rider performance) are very closely linked .... particularly when there are so many observations of 'poor' riders getting high scores.
--Without the consistency in the judging, riders are not getting valid feedback on their performance and no qualification standard can be trusted to accurately select for advancement the 'best' riders.
--Without tests that accurately rate riders, a qualification criteria for riders is a sham.
--Without accurate measurement tools, EF/DF have no way of knowing if any program is successfully reaching its goals.

Improving the tests and the judging segments are things that are directly under the USEF's control and are things that Can Be Measured. That has to be the starting point, not random hand-waving about how awful riders are.

*star*

[siegi b.]

Shotenstar - great response! However, I don't see the "close link" between improving judging and better rider performance. I agree that scores should not be all over the place for the same performance and that consistent feedback will be helpful to competitors in determining where they are in their training. How that will actually improve their riding is not clear to me because I don't see where the judges' comments could go into enough detail to be an actualy training aid. Comments such as "on the forehand, canter pirouette not uphill enough, needs more balance, etc. etc." tell you where the holes are, but they certainly don't tell you how to fix them. And they also don't necessarily make me believe that the competitor or their trainer will know how to fix them.

So yes, the judging needs to improve and maybe that's really all we can ask for at this point. But I would also like to see more "standardization" when it comes to training, something this country is sorely missing. Making riders qualify for different levels is not going to achieve that, so I don't know how the USEF/USDF will reach their goal of improving US dressage riders.

[pluvinel]

Wow....I go on vacation and COTH publishes my letter! Have not received my paper copy of COTH, just got a head's up on e-mail.

Siegi, to answer your concerns...my letter really just tried to hit the tip of the iceberg. The first and most fundamental question is how can a qualifying rule be put in place when the measurement system used to qualify riders (judges and the dressage test) has not been validated as being able to measure for its intended purpose, eg., to evaluate riders not horses.

In his article, Geo. Williams described at least 7 goals apart from a simple qualification of riders. The ideal of improving dressage in the US is a monumental undertaking, but that does not mean that one cannot start with some first steps.

I was hoping to point out that there is an extensive body of knowledge in industrial practice for how to train and test for human performance (think nuclear plant operators) that could be applied to dressage and that the US EF and DF need not start from scratch.

I concluded my letter with the following:
My recommendation is that they (US EF/DF) engage certified quality practitioners to assist in their work to address their dressage quality improvement goals.
…and no, that "quality professional" is not me. I am not drumming up business. I have a regular day job. There are many consultants in this field that would gladly offer their services.

[atlatl]

What she said!!

Great letter, thanks for taking the time to provide such a clear articulation of the problem.

[sm]

Excellent points. I do not expect USEF to use an outside service as they would lose "control" of the direction they want to go. However, these remain excellent points:

The first and most fundamental question is how can a qualifying rule be put in place when the measurement system used to qualify riders (judges and the dressage test) has not been validated as being able to measure for its intended purpose, eg., to evaluate riders not horses. ...

I was hoping to point out that there is an extensive body of knowledge in industrial practice for how to train and test for human performance (think nuclear plant operators) that could be applied to dressage and that the US EF and DF need not start from scratch.

[Alpha Mare]

I really appreciate your taking the time to write the letter and also the point you made that the desired improvement is with RIDERs while the majority of the scoring (and judges attention) is on the HORSE.

Count me in to support your proposal. And measurement of good/bad riding even on 'modest' horses

[tartanfarm]

'''''The USEF Dressage Committee met on July 1 & 2, 2008. Included in this meeting was discussion of the USEF Dressage Performance Standards proposal. This discussion included a review of compiled results of the on-line survey (received by June 15, 2008) which was developed to gather feedback from USEF and USDF members. ''''''


This is from the USEF web site. The way I read this members of the USEF, in any/ all disciplines could take part in the survey. If this is the case actual dressage competitors could easily be out voted by members who no nothing about the sport. Do we know who was included in the survey?

[ShotenStar]

Those who filled out the survey had to enter their membership numbers, which would allow some tracking of which discipline they compete in, and the survey asked for some demographic information about the member's competition experience / levels .... if USEF was savvy enough to capture / retain that information. But, given how poorly the survey was designed, I'm not sure anyone there understands how to use the information they may (or may not) have in hand.

*star*

[SGray]

seemed to me the survey was designed to elicit a specific response