Changes to the USFS Tests Proposed

[GarrAargHrumph]

USFS has posted their governing counsel documents, which include a proposal to change the USFS testing system to bring it more in line with the well balanced program requirements at your level. If you're a USFS member, you can log in and see what they've posted. I can't post a link and have it work, because you have to log in.

To quote them, this is what they are proposing:

- Add the option for athletes to receive Test Credit Recognition through IJS protocol at non-qualifying competitions. (Juvenile – Senior)
- Adjust the Test Requirements to reflect the Well Balanced Program requirements; allowing more flexibility to the athlete.
- Allow for the option for Pre-Preliminary FS to skate a program or perform isolated elements.
- Adjust the scoring of all tests to reflect a “-3 to +3- Based evaluation,” while allowing athletes to “Pass”, “Pass with Honors” or “Pass with Distinction

Sam Auxier writes:

A restructuring of our testing system — moving to a GOE-based system plus allowing our skaters the options of passing their tests at nonqualifying competitions is an exciting proposal to support our skaters. This proposal reduces the need (and expense) for separate programs or to change elements while also reducing the need to secure expensive ice times for testing. Of course, traditional testing will still be an option. These rule changes will also allow us to get closer to standardized judging across the country, update test requirements periodically and provide more options for our skaters to pass tests. This will also help recognize the need for training as well as provide for more consistent judging across the country.

 

[overedge]

I'm not a US skater, but this is really interesting.

I'm not sure about allowing the option of elements rather than a program in pre-prelim FS. I know that level is an "encouragement test", and it would open up the test to skaters who don't have the access to ice time or coaching to put together a program. But I think doing a program even at that level means that you really have to be able to do the elements well.

I'm not sure about the "distinction" and "honours" designations either. Passing the test is a big deal. Putting in degrees of passing might end up with skaters (or skate moms) feeling like they didn’t do well if they didn't get the designations.

 

[GarrAargHrumph]

The Distinction/Honors, they said, is to encourage people to put out better tests. They say in the document they posted that the quality of tests has been going down (which really surprised me), with people putting out tests that are barely ready, and taking tests when they are barely able to do the elements. They're hoping that this change brings the testing system a bit more in line with the GOE idea in IJS, and also encourages people to put out better tests.

 

[gkelly]

I'm not sure about allowing the option of elements rather than a program in pre-prelim FS. I know that level is an "encouragement test", and it would open up the test to skaters who don't have the access to ice time or coaching to put together a program. But I think doing a program even at that level means that you really have to be able to do the elements well.

The pre-preliminary test has always been an elements-only test.
Before 1994, when pre-preliminary was introduced, the preliminary freeskate test was an elements-only test.

The new proposal is to allow skaters testing at this level to do a program instead of just elements in isolation, if they so prefer.

Same for adult pre-bronze.

 

[overedge]

The pre-preliminary test has always been an elements-only test.
Before 1994, when pre-preliminary was introduced, the preliminary freeskate test was an elements-only test.

The new proposal is to allow skaters testing at this level to do a program instead of just elements in isolation, if they so prefer.

Same for adult pre-bronze.

Thanks for the clarification - now I understand a little better what the change is about. But I still think skaters should have to do both elements in isolation and a program. Being able to do one but not the other doesn't seem to me like an accurate representation (for lack of a better word) of the skater's ability to do the elements correctly and to a passing standard.

 

[overedge]

The Distinction/Honors, they said, is to encourage people to put out better tests. They say in the document they posted that the quality of tests has been going down (which really surprised me), with people putting out tests that are barely ready, and taking tests when they are barely able to do the elements. They're hoping that this change brings the testing system a bit more in line with the GOE idea in IJS, and also encourages people to put out better tests.

How do they define the "quality of tests"? Is it more people taking tests and failing, or the tests being passed with lower marks on average (i.e. still passing but not by as much as in the past)? Or something else?

If people are taking tests when they're not ready, or being encouraged to take tests when they're not ready, adding levels of recognition to passes might not address that problem. It might even have the opposite effect, of more people testing before they're ready because of the added attraction of getting more recognition (even if realistically they don't have much chance of passing). It sounds like what is really needed is better communication to coaches and skaters about the passing standards for the tests.

 

[ZilphaK]

If they want to change pre-preliminary to have a program option, that seems fine. Except that as a test chair, I counted on those pre-preliminary FS test to take far less time than a program and I could put three tests out at one time. If anything, I'd like the option of having a preliminary elements-only test, as well.

As far as adding GOE...errrrrr...there are a lot of non-competitive or low/club skate competitive skaters who are busting their butts and their wallets to get ice time and coaching. To add on GOE might only serve to reward the skaters who already have the cash to put in to training to compete at a higher levels and put out better programs.

I do think there needs to be a solid, rock-bottom expectation of skills at each test level. If anything, I'd say to loosen up the Novice MIF test -- those damn twizzles and loops, and fewer and fewer coaches able to teach them as we get farther away from figures -- so that more kids can pass the test well and be encouraged to continue on. Maybe move some of the elements to Junior or Senior test, etc. And if people want to test "with distinction", add an above-and-beyond level or two after Senior...maybe based on figures...the way the International dances are added on after getting Gold.

 

[Willin]

I have no idea why they're adding GOE to tests or grades of passing. Pass/Fail is enough. Nobody's earning a skating GPA here.

I'm also confused as to why you would add a program for the Pre-pre FS. I entirely agree with @Jozet - there's no reason to have a program here. It takes time and money. I would have taken more FS tests if I didn't have to spend the time choosing music, getting choreography, and spending lesson time learning the program that I could have used perfecting the skills for the test.
At the basic levels, I think focusing on skills is more important. I wonder if they should up the ante on skills though. Since people are doing harder skills at lower levels, we should encourage more skaters to learn the skills at lower levels. Heck, most Juvenile ladies (even those not at the sectional level) have at least one double - but the test does not require the skater to complete a single double, although they can if they wish. By Novice, the test only requires 3 doubles landed. Even at the Senior level no triple jump is absolutely required. Maybe we should be asking more at these levels?

I would love it if they made certain things easier on the MITF tests. I get the goal was to make them more rigorous or to include skills that skaters are now needing to learn (twizzles/loops), but some of the patterns make the moves harder then they need to be. I can do back loops until the cows come home, but the pattern for the Junior moves is so much harder than any loop I do in a normal footwork sequence. Although, once you get past that Senior's pretty darn easy. I'm sure it's also easier for those who grew up with these new tests - they changed right as I was about to take my Junior MITF, making the last two tests harder for me!

 

[gkelly]

If they want to change pre-preliminary to have a program option, that seems fine. Except that as a test chair, I counted on those pre-preliminary FS test to take far less time than a program and I could put three tests out at one time.

I hear you.

There may be fewer higher freestyles taken at test sessions once skaters are allowed to submit competition protocols instead, which would free up some time. But that might make the test sessions less fun for test-only judges.

And it won't save a lot of time, because the moves tests are what fill up most of the test session time.

As far as adding GOE...errrrrr...there are a lot of non-competitive or low/club skate competitive skaters who are busting their butts and their wallets to get ice time and coaching. To add on GOE might only serve to reward the skaters who already have the cash to put in to training to compete at a higher levels and put out better programs.

As I understand the proposal (correct me if I've read it wrong), judges will give -3 to +3 for the technical score ("Elements") as a whole, not for each elements separately, as well as -3 to +3 for skating quality and -3 to +3 for the program.

This will be a new way of thinking for both test judges and competition judges. I suspect that some test judges might just give up and resign their appointments, which will be a problem for test chairs in the short term.

Essentially, instead of starting a juvenile freeskate test at a standard of 3.0, judges would have in mind what a juvenile test should look like in terms of Elements, Skating Skills, and Program and give pluses or minuses for each of those general areas. So a juvenile test that would have earned 2.7 or lower for Technical Merit will now earn -3 for Elements. If it would have earned 3.0 for Technical Merit, it will now earn 0 for Elements. And it needs to have at least 0 for elements in order to pass, but there might be more flexibility in how that's achieved.

For moves tests, as I understand, the pluses and minuses will be for each move separately and will balance each other out the same way as going up and down from the passing average for each move to reach the total passing score, or not. So skaters who are close to passing standard would still have just as much chance of passing by earning extra points on some moves to make up for lower scores on other moves.

It looks from the proposed rule changes that it will not be necessary to reskate a move with what's now called a serious error if the scores for all the moves add up to a high enough total without the reskate.

I do think there needs to be a solid, rock-bottom expectation of skills at each test level.

And that will no longer be tied to a specific numerical value. Instead of going up and down from 3.5 on a novice test, judges would just be giving 0 to a just-good-enough novice move and pluses or minuses to moves that are better or worse than what they consider novice standard. But they won't have a specific number to tie that standard to. 0 on a novice move would mean higher quality than 0 on a juvenile or preliminary move, lower than on a senior move.

If anything, I'd say to loosen up the Novice MIF test -- those damn twizzles and loops, and fewer and fewer coaches able to teach them as we get farther away from figures -- so that more kids can pass the test well and be encouraged to continue on.

I guess they need to excel at the other moves on the test to earn pluses on those to balance out any minuses on the more difficult moves -- same as now, regardless of whether the scores are going up and down from 0 or from 3.5.

I don't see that this change will make it harder to pass the novice moves test (yes, as discussed in another thread that's the test with the lowest passing percentage), but it won't make it easier either. The skaters who are really good at several of the moves will get official recognition for that quality, which may make some skaters decide to wait to test.

I'm sure that more judging schools or other training opportunities will be needed. Will they also include new guidance to judges on what's "good enough" for a 0 vs. good, better, and best for +1, +2, and +3?

I have no idea why they're adding GOE to tests or grades of passing. Pass/Fail is enough. Nobody's earning a skating GPA here.

There were already numerical scores -- some skaters passed right on the passing score and some passed with higher scores. They're trying to standardize that and give official rewards for passing with higher scores.

I'm also confused as to why you would add a program for the Pre-pre FS. I entirely agree with @Jozet - there's no reason to have a program here.

It's not required -- it's an option.

At the basic levels, I think focusing on skills is more important. I wonder if they should up the ante on skills though. Since people are doing harder skills at lower levels, we should encourage more skaters to learn the skills at lower levels.

They are. They've changed the freestyle test requirements to match the well-balanced program requirements more closely. So skaters can pass by doing the minimum that's expected in a competition program at that level (preliminary and above), or they can replace easier moves with harder ones and get higher scores that way. That also allows juveniles and intermediates who are training double axels to include those in their programs and not have remind themselves how to do singles for the test, or seniors working on triple lutzes not have to include a double in the test. But skaters who can only do the minimum jump content could still pass by doing that successfully.

It does look like they won't be able to pass unless they get at least 0 for the Elements score, so they can't balance out almost-there elements with good presentation. I'm not clear from reading the rule changes, but it may be that the skater could balance out some inadequate elements with other strong ones, e.g., a clean double jump at juvenile level could make up for a flawed axel. Or even really good spins and other single jumps?

Of course, there might be some adjustments to the proposed changes before they actually get passed, so there's not much point in trying to parse the changes too closely until after the vote.

 

[clairecloutier]

I'm glad I didn't have to do a program for Pre-Preliminary. Just taking my first test was a big enough deal on its own, without having to deal with a program as well. (I had never done a program before.)

 

[ZilphaK]

I'm curious to see how this will all work with including competitions, for example, will it be an added fee to have the competition program considered for a test, since I'm guessing it will include some additional paperwork, possibly an extra judge/volunteer or two to keep track of tests. Also, just wondering whether competitions are included in current the 28-day time lapse now required between tests.

I only specifically brought up Novice because, yes, as discussed before, it's a test that is most difficult and seems to come at a time when a lot of preteen/teen skaters who aren't high-level competitors are taking on high school and other activities; there seems to be a lot of drop-off at this time. And while I don't think any test should be dumbed down in any way, I'd just like to be sure that what's a roadblock now to so many doesn't become a bigger roadblock. I do understand that USFS is in the business of finding and promoting high-caliber skaters for international competition, but I'm always watchful and a bit cautious when it comes to the needs to the majority of skaters who are hard-working within their means and who also genuinely love skating and benefit from the goal-setting and practice of the testing process. I guess I'm just hesitating at the GOE component because it can feel like being pitted directly against kids who have the ways and means to compete at high levels. Again, not looking for "participation trophies" for anyone...I'm just cautious when competitive skaters or even certain types of competitive skaters are viewed as being "real skating," you know? Adding the competitive "feel" and language to testing...it could work...again, I tend toward being more conservative when it comes to change.

 

[Deleted member 19433]

I'm curious to see how this will all work with including competitions, for example, will it be an added fee to have the competition program considered for a test, since I'm guessing it will include some additional paperwork, possibly an extra judge/volunteer or two to keep track of tests. Also, just wondering whether competitions are included in current the 28-day time lapse now required between tests.

The way it's proposed, the skater's home club will be responsible for reporting the competition program submitted for test credit and the skater has up to a year to submit the documentation to them. It also specifies that the 27 day waiting period does not apply in that case (item 361 if you have access to the documents in Members Only). The competition accounting program supposedly will automatically generate a report of who met the standards for the tests.

I don't think the change in judging system would make it harder to pass test, and in fact it might make it easier now that there would be no such thing as a "serious error" and the quality of everything else could outweigh seriously flawed element(s).

 

[gkelly]

I'm curious to see how this will all work with including competitions, for example, will it be an added fee to have the competition program considered for a test, since I'm guessing it will include some additional paperwork, possibly an extra judge/volunteer or two to keep track of tests.

That would probably be up to the host club, but it wouldn't surprise me if they charge twice for a skater who is both competing and testing with the same performance.

Also, just wondering whether competitions are included in current the 28-day time lapse now required between tests.

According to the current proposals, the waiting period would not apply.

I only specifically brought up Novice because, yes, as discussed before, it's a test that is most difficult and seems to come at a time when a lot of preteen/teen skaters who aren't high-level competitors are taking on high school and other activities; there seems to be a lot of drop-off at this time. And while I don't think any test should be dumbed down in any way, I'd just like to be sure that what's a roadblock now to so many doesn't become a bigger roadblock.

Are you talking about the moves tests? I don't see any proposed change to the content or standard of the tests, just the way the judges decisions are expressed in numbers: -3 to +3 for each move instead of ≤3.2 to ≥3.8 (for novice) for each move.

So if there are 6 moves on the test, 0 0 +1 -1 +2 -2 should pass the same as 3.5 3.5 3.6 3.4 3.7 3.3 in the old scoring.

A test is not a competition, so skaters shouldn't be pitted directly against other skaters, but rather against a general standard of "good enough to pass this level of test." Judges were already making distinctions between passing novice freeskate tests with 3.5/3.5 for a skater who just managed to accomplish the requirements vs. 3.7 or 3.8 or more for competitors who skated well above test standard in their test programs. As I understand, the standard for "0" on any of the three marks should be comparable to what the standard already was for the passing mark for that test -- the skater who would currently pass novice FS with 3.5/3.5 would pass with 0/0/0 or 0/+1/-1 in the new scoring.

If I understand correctly, though, -1/+2/+2 would not pass the test, which would be a problem at novice and above for skaters who can't fully rotate double jumps but are stronger in skating skill and performance. I guess it depends whether good spins, steps, and single jumps especially the axel will be able to make up on the Elements mark for cheated doubles. The proposed rule changes don't seem to address how judges will be trained to arrive at that Elements score.

 

[GarrAargHrumph]

I don't think the change in judging system would make it harder to pass test, and in fact it might make it easier now that there would be no such thing as a "serious error" and the quality of everything else could outweigh seriously flawed element(s).

If they do this, it's the bit I'm most excited about, personally. The thing holding me back from taking my next MITF test is the power threes. The rest of the test is either there, or nearly there, but those power threes are killing me. By the time I get those to even nearly test standard, the rest of the test is going to be OUTSTANDING. So if I get marked on the whole test, I may pass it, even if my power threes are still a bit... powerless

 

[Debbie S]

By the time I get those to even nearly test standard, the rest of the test is going to be OUTSTANDING. So if I get marked on the whole test, I may pass it, even if my power threes are still a bit... powerless

You could pass right now with powerless power 3's. You would just need to have another move able to be marked above the passing average to balance it out.

There are too many things that suggest to me that these changes haven't been completely thought through. I do see where they crossed out the part about serious errors leading to an automatic retry, but there are no guidelines on how they should be marked. I see there is a note above that about false starts, etc, requiring a -1, but nothing about the more serious errors, i.e. falls, touching down, hitting the wall (not that I've ever done any of those things ). Without any guidelines, I would assume judges would just mark the move at -3 and basically make it impossible to pass, at least not without a reskate, so I don't see a major change there. But I think there should be guidelines. I also think it will be problematic for the Adult MIF tests, where there are some higher level moves on each test (i.e. Pre-Juv moves on Bronze, Juv moves on Silver, Int moves on Gold) and the 6.0-based scoring at least puts the expectation into context - ex: 3.0 standard is different from 3.2. If everything is based on 0, where is the distinction between levels?

And unless I'm reading incorrectly, it looks like dance tests will no longer have separate Adult and Masters standards (and what about the rule not requiring a solo portion for adults at Silver level and up, or is that listed separately, unchanged?). The part about the scoring just has the current level standards all crossed out and says the same scoring will apply to all candidates. Or did someone just not think about that?

The new proposal is to allow skaters testing at this level to do a program instead of just elements in isolation, if they so prefer.

Same for adult pre-bronze.

If that passes, then it would knock out part of the argument for not including Pre-Bronze FS at AN - that skaters haven't demonstrated program ability unlike skaters at Bronze and up.

IMO, the rule shouldn't give an option between elements and program. I can see mass confusion for test chairs (which option did they sign up for?) - remember, we're talking about an introductory level where skaters and parents are still learning the skating terminology. It should be one or the other. I would be in favor of keeping it the same - elements only. It's not as if the current test format requires Pre-Prelim/Pre-Bronze skaters to do anything above and beyond (such as with the skaters at the higher levels who usually need to water down their comp programs for test purposes). I wouldn't be in favor of requiring a program at the first level - it's supposed to be an encouragement level, make it as accessible as possible.

 

[SherryL]

I have daughters who are avid testers in moves, free skate, and dance for the past 5 years. The GOE-based system would not have affected us to put out a better tests, though it may affect others. A pass to us would mean we can move on up the next level moves or dance testing. A pass in FS means we can compete at the next level up in qualifying competitions.

I'm not a judge, but I got a feeling that some judges have been using the + and - systems on skating tests already. This is based on the little markings that I've seen on some of the test papers from both my daughters' moves tests. For example, on a judging form on my daughter's Sr MIF test, there is a little marking of "+" on the sustained edge step, and a little marking of "-" on the serpentine edge step. There are no "+" or "-" on the other 3 MIF elements. The marking with the little "+" next to it had 4.6 score, and the "-" had a 4.4 score, while the other 3 elements had 4.5.

Changing to the GOE-based system for skating tests might be codifying what some test judges have been doing all along. I just hope that if the judging system is changed that it wouldn't discourage current judges and decrease the pool of available judges.

I would have definitely liked to have had the option of passing FS tests at non-qualifying competitions. It’ll save me time & expense of getting coaches to rework a competitive FS program to a test program with simpler jumps and spins, and of having my kids practice the reworked program for numerous freestyle sessions.

 

[Deleted member 19433]

If they do this, it's the bit I'm most excited about, personally. The thing holding me back from taking my next MITF test is the power threes. The rest of the test is either there, or nearly there, but those power threes are killing me. By the time I get those to even nearly test standard, the rest of the test is going to be OUTSTANDING. So if I get marked on the whole test, I may pass it, even if my power threes are still a bit... powerless

You could pass right now with powerless power 3's. You would just need to have another move able to be marked above the passing average to balance it out.

Yes, especially since the focus on adult tests is not "power" but "continuous flow and strength."

There are too many things that suggest to me that these changes haven't been completely thought through. I do see where they crossed out the part about serious errors leading to an automatic retry, but there are no guidelines on how they should be marked. I see there is a note above that about false starts, etc, requiring a -1, but nothing about the more serious errors, i.e. falls, touching down, hitting the wall (not that I've ever done any of those things ). Without any guidelines, I would assume judges would just mark the move at -3 and basically make it impossible to pass, at least not without a reskate, so I don't see a major change there. But I think there should be guidelines. I also think it will be problematic for the Adult MIF tests, where there are some higher level moves on each test (i.e. Pre-Juv moves on Bronze, Juv moves on Silver, Int moves on Gold) and the 6.0-based scoring at least puts the expectation into context - ex: 3.0 standard is different from 3.2. If everything is based on 0, where is the distinction between levels?

There definitely do need to be guidelines on what types of errors need to earn each GOEs, especially in free skating where there are up to 13 different elements encompassed in one mark, and not only is the quality of the elements marked, but the difficulty also. I have seen a decent number of tests where everything else was so good that a passing total could be reached but the skater made a fluke error that required a reskate. I've also sometimes seen moves that had so many errors that a mark more than 3 steps below the standard was warranted, which wouldn't be possible under this system. What if a skater just couldn't do one of the moves at all? It's unlikely for a test to be put out in that case but still problematic in theory. All of the former "serious errors" are crossed out, even "omission of a required element."

Actually, another issue is that GOE is supposed to go from -5 to +5 (and already passed ISU Congress) effective in the 2018-2019 season, which would be before this proposal even takes place (proposed for September 2, 2018).

And unless I'm reading incorrectly, it looks like dance tests will no longer have separate Adult and Masters standards (and what about the rule not requiring a solo portion for adults at Silver level and up, or is that listed separately, unchanged?). The part about the scoring just has the current level standards all crossed out and says the same scoring will apply to all candidates. Or did someone just not think about that?

They are still there. There is text that says, "Note: The proposed changes below do not eliminate the adult and masters tracks for pattern dance tests." No amendment has been proposed to the rules specifying the solo requirements.

IMO, the rule shouldn't give an option between elements and program. I can see mass confusion for test chairs (which option did they sign up for?) - remember, we're talking about an introductory level where skaters and parents are still learning the skating terminology. It should be one or the other. I would be in favor of keeping it the same - elements only. It's not as if the current test format requires Pre-Prelim/Pre-Bronze skaters to do anything above and beyond (such as with the skaters at the higher levels who usually need to water down their comp programs for test purposes). I wouldn't be in favor of requiring a program at the first level - it's supposed to be an encouragement level, make it as accessible as possible.

I agree that the test option should be one or the other, and have no problems with that being elements only. It does make it easier for test chairs to run multiple tests at the same time and save on ice costs. If this passes I guess the test chairs would have to individually find out or have them mark it. If the passing tests with an IJS protocol from competition goes through (there is also a proposal to require IJS to be offered for all well-balanced free skate levels, which has its own, possibly even bigger, set of possible consequences) then pre-preliminary skaters who have a program could use that option and wouldn't need to do the elements test.

 

[gkelly]

Depending on a club's test pricing structure, if they currently charge significantly less for pre-pre and pre-bronze freestyle tests than for preliminary, bronze, or other program tests, they might need to charge the higher fee for pre-preliminary/pre-bronze tests skated as programs.

For a competitive pre-preliminary skater who wants to use the test as practice performing the whole competitive program including axels, it would be worth paying a bit more. For a skater at that level, just doing the isolated elements is a meaningless hoop to jump through, which I'm sure is the motivation behind the change.

But for a test-focused skater who just wants recognition for having mastered beginning freestyle elements, the element test is more attractive. As well as being easier for test chairs to schedule.

 

[Aussie Willy]

We have been judging tests using GOEs for quite a while in Australia. Our pattern tests are based on the USFSA tests. I have put a link to our test papers below.

http://www.isa.org.au/testing-and-competing

From a judging perspective, as we judge all competitions under IJS, it was a natural progression to judge tests under the same criteria. So for each technical test there is a standard that has to be reached (number of -3 or -2 GOEs). For the pattern tests, the skater has to reach base or above on each pattern to pass. There is also a requirement for repeats. And there is a discretion that a judge can apply if they feel a test doesn't reach the standard.

I have found our guidelines work quite well. We have a table similar to judging an ice dance pattern that we use on the patterns. When providing skaters with the results, particularly when it comes to a failed test, you can refer to that document to show why you were in the negative on the GOEs. And same when it comes to a technical test, you can highlight what elements resulted in the test not passing and be able to explain quite clearly your justifications.

Also Levels are not taken into account. That is for competition. Just the quality of the element is judged.

Our system is a straightforward pass/fail. But a good test would be one that has a number of positive GOEs, not just base value elements. So if you were going down the path of distinctions, etc that is qualification you can use. I think anything that motivates people go above and beyond the basic requirements can only be a good thing.

We had discussed about using a competition program for testing. It never came in back was agreed it was a good idea for the fact that some test sessions are so busy it was a way of scheduling tests.

 

[Debbie S]

For example, on a judging form on my daughter's Sr MIF test, there is a little marking of "+" on the sustained edge step, and a little marking of "-" on the serpentine edge step. There are no "+" or "-" on the other 3 MIF elements. The marking with the little "+" next to it had 4.6 score, and the "-" had a 4.4 score, while the other 3 elements had 4.5.

I think most judges thought in terms of over/under even before IJS, since tests were always given numerical scores. It sounds like that judge was making notes for him/herself. Some judges wait until the end of a test to give out actual scores (a judge in my club has told me that he does this), to see if the overall test meets the standard for the level and if one move was a bit under par, maybe there is a move that was above standard that could balance it out. (Congrats to your daughter on passing Senior Moves!)

They are still there. There is text that says, "Note: The proposed changes below do not eliminate the adult and masters tracks for pattern dance tests." No amendment has been proposed to the rules specifying the solo requirements.

Thanks, I missed that. That is good to know, but there needs to be language on the test form or rulebook specifying what is expected at each standard. Right now, it's based on scores - i.e. Adult is 0.2 below standard track, etc. If everything is based on 0, there has to be distinction spelled out somewhere.

 

[Deleted member 19433]

Thanks, I missed that. That is good to know, but there needs to be language on the test form or rulebook specifying what is expected at each standard. Right now, it's based on scores - i.e. Adult is 0.2 below standard track, etc. If everything is based on 0, there has to be distinction spelled out somewhere.

TR 45.05 and TR 45.06 already address the difference in standards between standard, adult, and masters pattern dance tests. There is no proposal to change these.

TR 45.05 For adult tests, the candidate should show the same level of achievement in expression, carriage, unison, knowledge of the steps, correct edges, timing, rhythm and musical interpretation as expected from the standard candidate. A clear understanding of the correct pattern should be demonstrated, although a pattern that is slightly smaller than the one expected at the standard level is acceptable. Flow, speed, depth of edge, extension and quality of turns should be at least equivalent to that of a standard candidate at one test level below.

TR 45.06 For masters tests, knowledge of steps and basic timing must equal that required of standard candidates for the level being tested. Although a large pattern is not required, the shape of the lobes and their relation to each other should be approximately correct. Expression must at least meet the standard for the level below. Strong development of extension, carriage, unison, flow/speed and depth of edge will not be demanded. However, basic balance, form and skating skills must be adequate to achieve comfortable performance of the required steps and partner positions at every level.

 

[nicayal]

Just FYI, it does look like this passed. 0 would be a straight pass on a scale of -3 to +3. You can pass with distinction and honors too. It seems like they're going to spend the next year implementing this in the testing system. As a current singles and ice dance trial judge, I'm curious how this'll affect scoring when it comes to achieving judge appointments, if at all.

To read the booklet, you'll need to log into your USFS account. Instructions can be found here: http://www.2017governingcouncil.com/page/show/3317004-meeting-book-and-reports

 

[GarrAargHrumph]

How do we know if something passed and is to be implemented? I know things were voted on in committee, but they're listed as proposals in the meeting book, so...

 

[gkelly]

It doesn't look like the results of last weekend's votes have been announced yet. When they are, whoever finds them first can update this thread.

 

[Doubletoe]

It doesn't look like the results of last weekend's votes have been announced yet. When they are, whoever finds them first can update this thread.

I don't know about the standard track changes, but FWIW, the official U.S. Adult Skating Committee Facebook page posted on May 6 that "All Adult Skating Committee items passed the 2017 Governing Council without isolation. Competitions Committee RFA325 also passed without isolation."

 

[Debbie S]

Combined ROA now posted: http://www.usfigureskating.org/content/2016-17 Combined Report of Action FINAL.pdf

All proposed test changes passed. The program option for Pre-Prelim (doesn't sound like it also applies to Adult Pre-Bronze?) and the option to submit an IJS protocol in lieu of testing Juv-Senior FS/Pairs/FD go into effect in November and the scoring changes go into effect in Sept 2018.

 

[gkelly]

All proposed test changes passed. The program option for Pre-Prelim (doesn't sound like it also applies to Adult Pre-Bronze?)

TR 28.04 has a parenthetical "except for pre-preliminary and adult pre-bronze free skate tests with program option," which implies a program option for adult pre-bronze.

But I don't see the adjusted well-balanced program rules showing the test requirements for any adult levels except gold. If all the test requirements are going to be removed from the test section and included in the well-balanced program 4000s section, they'll need to adjust the charts for silver and bronze as well as pre-bronze. (Not for masters, because those aren't separate tests.)

 

[ChiquitaBanana]

Skate Canada has been undergoing its test system reforming for some years and they had introduced the concept of GOE for a long time. Way before, your elements would be marked a " need improvement/satisfactory/good/excellent" . They changed it maybe 5 years ago for -3 to +1.

There were always two parts of a free style test : elements and program.

You can have a look at a test sheet here https://info.skatecanada.ca/hc/fr-c...963790/05_Sr_Silver_Free_Skate_Test_Sheet.pdf

Even in competition, the lower level are marked on each element, obtaining a mention of merit-bronze-silver or gold. At STAR 4, they get extra points for these mentions and at STAR 5, they don't get mentions but pure GOE.

That is said, they are migrating to a whole new system called STAR, going from STAR 1 to 10.

 

[leafygreens]

Why are tests passing if the perception of "barely ready" is a problem? A test is either passing or it is not. If a skater is so bad, then why are they allowed to pass the test at all? If barely ready is passing, then they are good enough to be at that level, end of story. If barely ready is not good enough, then that's on the judge for wrongly passing them.

I don't think -1 is more clear than -.1. It may help streamline it with the IJS system but that's all. I don't see how it's going to clarify what is passing and what is not, anymore than the old system. The question that needs to be asked is, "Are people passing tests who shouldn't be and why is this happening?" I'm not against changing the tests to IJS. I'm just baffled by this "barely ready" perception.

 

[gkelly]

Why are tests passing if the perception of "barely ready" is a problem? A test is either passing or it is not. If a skater is so bad, then why are they allowed to pass the test at all? If barely ready is passing, then they are good enough to be at that level, end of story. If barely ready is not good enough, then that's on the judge for wrongly passing them.

I don't know.

Probably the answer is different depending whether you're talking about freestyle vs. moves vs. pattern dance tests, and whether you're talking about competitors aiming at qualifying competitions in singles, or pairs or dance, vs. synchro skaters who need to pass moves and sometimes dance tests to move up with their teams, vs. skaters who test just for the sake of testing or compete in test-track events or less technically focused disciplines.

It would also probably vary a lot from one area of the country to another, maybe from one club to another in more or less the same area.

But the judges tend to move around and judge at multiple clubs and sometimes away from their home areas.