Three little dots

Two years ago, I was asked to coach the local FFA chapter’s dairy cattle evaluation and management team. I quickly agreed. Of all the activities I’ve coached and continue to coach, dairy judging ranks quite high.

The goal: Help them win the state contest and earn a trip to the National FFA Convention & Expo. Due to chapter policies, this would likely be the only way they could go to the national convention. The team had just placed sixth at the state convention and the students believed they could do better.

When I was a student, my school didn’t have an ag program, so I came into this role with zero knowledge of FFA and its contests. The kids helped me understand how the Career Development Event works. I helped the kids with placings strategies and oral reasons.

Last year, they improved to second place. That finish earned them an opportunity to compete at a national FFA dairy judging contest in Pennsylvania last fall. They placed second there, too.

They continued to improve this year, which led to team wins at the state fair, fall invitational and region contest. They entered the state contest last month with confidence — and a healthy respect for the subjective nature of dairy judging contests.

When the contest was all said and done, the kids compared their placings. Three of the team members placed the classes almost the same; the fourth team member placed one class very differently. The only scores we didn’t have were reasons. But I wasn’t worried; this is the team that won the reasons portion of the Pennsylvania contest.

The kids took the stage for awards with their fingers crossed. Two of the team members placed first and third individually in the contest. We all let our hopes soar, knowing that one of the other team member’s placings were nearly identical to the two who placed.

But then our chapter’s name was called for second place. We were stunned. The kids even forgot to step forward to receive their plaque. But then my brain resumed thinking and I told the kids, “Just hold tight. This doesn’t make sense. Maybe there was an error with the scoring.”

Sure enough. As soon as the scores were released at the end of the convention, the kids immediately found not one, but two errors with the scoring. The first error was the omission of part of their team activity score. This error affected every team in the contest.

The second error was a Scantron bubbling error by the team member we had expected to score similarly to the two who had placed. And, unfortunately, the bubbling error was on the three-part class that requires placing by type, ranking by genetic merit and production records, and then combining type and records for an overall placing. Those three little dots on the wrong line of the Scantron were worth 65 points – enough for that student’s score to be dropped.

One of the kids on the team took action, got contact information for contest staff, and reported both errors within the hour.

The kids also quickly crunched the numbers. Adding the missing team activity score would give them 20 more points — enough to place first by three points. Correcting the individual Scantron error would give the team enough points to place first by 43 points.

Updated scores were posted the next day. The missing team points were added, but the individual Scantron error points were not.

As the kids deduced, our team was now in first place by three points. But the day after that, it was reported that another error had been found — this one on the answer key for the team activity. Once this new error was corrected, our team score dropped by two points and the now-second place team saw their score increase by two points. The placings switched again, putting our team back in second place.

At this point, we asked again about using the official back-up placings form that each student fills out during the contest to correct the individual Scantron error. We were told again that the Scantron error would not be corrected.

The kids asked to appeal that decision on the grounds that (1) the published dairy cattle evaluation and management rules state that, “Computer scan sheets will be used for this CDE,” but do not specify that only scan sheets can be used to determine a student’s score. (2) The back-up placings form, which was turned in with the Scantron, shows the student’s intended placings. And (3), most of all, they felt that, since there had been so many other errors in the contest, it would be fair to reconcile Scantron scores with the placings forms.

Unfortunately, we were told that students cannot appeal decisions — only FFA advisers are allowed to appeal. I was shocked. Every other youth development organization that I’m familiar with — our independent school districts, the state high school league and 4-H — gives students the right to appeal. Can FFA honestly call itself a student-led organization if students have no ability to request a review of their situation or appeal a decision?

I can’t say that an appeal would change the outcome of the contest. I’m not even 100% clear what the appeal process is. Are student leaders asked to weigh in? Or is this another area where only advisors have a voice? I feel it’s wrong that these kids didn’t even get to have their situation reviewed.

There are times in organizations and societies when rules and their enforcement need to be interpreted. That’s why our country has separate rule-making, rule-executing and rule-interpreting branches. When one branch makes the rules, executes the rules and interprets the rules, there is no true justice, only the illusion of order.

I hesitated to share this story. Despite this situation, I do believe FFA provides incredible opportunities for youth. And I don’t want the kids I coach to be retaliated against. But if everyone succumbed to their fear of retaliation, no one would speak up. And if no one speaks up, nothing changes.

Ultimately, these kids did what they set out to do: become the best dairy cattle evaluation team in the state. I am incredibly proud of their commitment to improving and all that they accomplished.