A Judge for one of the FLL events in our FIRST community shared an incredible story with me this weekend. It brought home the depth of the Judges' desire to see the teams at their best or to 'catch' them at it.
It brought home the understanding of the wealth of experience and knowledge that the Judges bring to the table. It brought home the passion that the Judges share among themselves and with the teams during their competitions.
I understand why some folks would like to have an element of Peer Judging in determining the Chairman's Award but I think about the discussions that constantly plague ChiefDelphi regarding mentor led/student led teams and mentor built/student built robots. It makes me sad to think that there are those who want to treat the Chairman's Award with that same mentality, ignoring the caliber of the Judges and what they bring to the event in the way of perspective, knowledge, insight, enthusiasm, and focus.
I've followed this thread closely and my thoughts haven't changed. They are:
1. Continue with your team development and impact on the community - however your team views community
2. Document the process
- create videos and materials for short programs/introductions/interviews
- create videos and materials for longer programs/introductions/interviews
- have them archived and organized, ready to access
- keep your documentation current
- continue to monitor and improve in your team's growth and development
3. Share your knowledge and experiences with other teams, helping them to continue to grow and develop
4. Document the process
Many of us are losing the trust element that is built into the program. The bridge this year has shown us that we have a long way to go to fully understand the importance of the trust element. Micromanaging the Chairman's Award will not do anything of benefit towards helping to balance the bridge on the field or off the field.
Jane