Assessment grading

[andyscott]

Just a quick one for the assessors.
Our society doesn't use these grades so what is the difference between.
G
MD
ND

What would make someone fit into each grading?

 

[Padster]

This is the guidance I work to-
• Good (G)
For G to be awarded the Referee should have complied with the all of the descriptors on nearly all occasions. (As a minimum requirement this should exceed 90 %)

• Minor Development (MD)
For MD to be awarded the Referee should have complied with the all of the descriptors on most occasions. (Between 75 to 90%)

• Needs Development (ND)
For ND to be awarded the Referee should have complied with the Control and Communication descriptors not regularly enough. (Between 60 to 75%)

• Significant Development (SD)
For SD to be awarded the Referee will not have complied with the descriptors often enough. (Less than 60%)

 

[OB..]

The rather depressing thing is how often I have to explain them to referees. :sad:

 

[andyscott]

The rather depressing thing is how often I have to explain them to referees. :sad:

Is that because it's not standard? Or because they have never been told?

 

[OB..]

Is that because it's not standard? Or because they have never been told?

It is standard. Virtually all of them have been assessed before. They will therefore have seen the marking but presumably not bothered to ask what it meant.

 

[upnunder]

We dont use these grades in our society, I only know about them from going on exchanges.

 

[Simon Thomas]

These are the standard RFU national assessment grades, and are used for "Form2" (so Society development and exchange referees). They are what I have seen in the RFU Adviser course and in DB and Uncle Bob's, and my own presentations in the past.

Most Societies don't use them on the basic Society Form1 which is the basic 'coaching' form.

They are not used at Group or Panel Level either (some Federations use the Group L5 form too).

Both the Panel / Group and Federation/Society referee development (so covers assesment / coaching / advising / mentoring etc) are being reviewed in two separate RFU Working Groups currently, and we expect next season to see a new process in place at all levels. Pilots are already underway with some Groups, Federations and Societies to explore and test the concepts / best way forward.

The focus is on what is effective and beneficial for the referees and their performance/development and my guess (not any official policy), and pesonal hope, is that assessors will become more of a hybrid assessor/coach in future at all levels.

 

[Phil E]

The focus is on what is effective and beneficial for the referees and their performance/development and my guess (not any official policy), and pesonal hope, is that assessors will become more of a hybrid assessor/coach in future at all levels.

I think this has been done for the assessors benefit.

All that negativity must be depressing :buttkick:

 

[andyscott]

The focus is on what is effective and beneficial for the referees and their performance/development and my guess (not any official policy), and pesonal hope, is that assessors will become more of a hybrid assessor/coach in future at all levels.

I hope so as it is generally coaching points you need to move on, or allow you to find your own answers :chair: from coaching help.

 

[andyscott]

It is standard. Virtually all of them have been assessed before. They will therefore have seen the marking but presumably not bothered to ask what it meant.

Well they should ask, as I have :horse:

 

[Simon Thomas]

Not at all Phil - certainly not at Federation & Group levels. The next steps are totally driven by raising referee performance and development. I sat in the kick-off discussions, and heard it all debated.

Many Society level Match Observers tend to be hybrids already anyway.

 

[Phil E]

er.......I was joking............[makes mental note to get ST a sense of humour for Christmas :biggrin:]

 

[AlanT]

Good (G)
Minor Development (MD)
Needs Development (ND)
Significant Development (SD)

I have always thought that it's a shame that. It would more encouraging to keep the 4 definitions, but label them:
Very Good
Good
Significant Development
Unacceptable

 

[OB..]

I have always thought that it's a shame that. It would more encouraging to keep the 4 definitions, but label them:
Very Good
Good
Significant Development
Unacceptable

I certainly agree with the basic idea of making the meaning more obvious, but I don't think it is a good idea to change the meanings of current terms. Something like Good, Satisfactory, Average, Below standard.

 

[Simon Thomas]

er.......I was joking............[makes mental note to get ST a sense of humour for Christmas :biggrin:]

ooops - in the current economic climate, and general global mess we are in, plus ongoing sadness & frsutration at RFU cock-up after cock-up I seem to have lost any sense of humour to be honest.

So if you can find it again, that would be great.

 

[Phil E]

ooops - in the current economic climate, and general global mess we are in, plus ongoing sadness & frsutration at RFU cock-up after cock-up I seem to have lost any sense of humour to be honest.

So if you can find it again, that would be great.

Need to sort the garage out soon. There should be a spare one lying around in there somewhere. :tongue:

 

[oldman]

Phil E, I suppose working for the Baggies a sense of humour is essential!!

 

[Phil E]

Phil E, I suppose working for the Baggies a sense of humour is essential!!

Absolutely, you better believe it.
Worked there 10 years and not a single season has gone by where we weren't fighting promotion or relegation.

 

[andyscott]

I certainly agree with the basic idea of making the meaning more obvious, but I don't think it is a good idea to change the meanings of current terms. Something like Good, Satisfactory, Average, Below standard.

No it will be
Good
Satisfactory
Average
Probably could do with moving down, but we dare not approach the subject in case they take the huff and leave.

 

[Dixie]

Good (G)
Minor Development (MD)
Needs Development (ND)
Significant Development (SD)

I have always thought that it's a shame that. It would more encouraging to keep the 4 definitions, but label them:
Very Good
Good
Significant Development
Unacceptable

I certainly agree with the basic idea of making the meaning more obvious, but I don't think it is a good idea to change the meanings of current terms. Something like Good, Satisfactory, Average, Below standard.

To me, the problem is (and would remain under OB's suggestion) that there is nowhere in the scale for "this is the standard we expect of a referee at this level" - it falls between Good and Minor Development. The obvious solution would be a five-point reference, with two points either side of the expected standard. OB's suggestion, which was probably rather more off-the-cuff than his normal input, indicates that "average" is lower than satisfactory, which seems to me to indicate that the average referee in a given grade is unsatisfactory within that grade. IMO, "satisfactory" should be "average" - the mid-point expectation. Above that you can have good and exceptional; below it you can have needs development and unacceptable. There would be very few indeed qualifying for either exceptional or unacceptable, and perhaps these outliers might be dealt with separately - recommendation for a second assessment with a view to automatic promotion for the one; recommendation for a second review with a view to automatic demotion for the other. In that case, you could ahve a three-point scale for 98% of referees - exceeds expectations, meets expectations and falls short of expectation.