Judging lessons

they heard it, and, again, their integrity and honesty are unquestionable. I can’t stress that enough. This is not about them, because in 1984 judging pupils was something of an accepted tradition.

So, that’s my main experience with being judged by teachers. I apologize if it comes across as bragging. That is not my intention. Including such detail I think is essential to tell the experience of a reasonably successful piper who was awarded a major prize, not out of the blue, by a bench comprising three judges who had taught him. It’s a true story, and, while it’s not pleasant to relay publicly, it’s an important example to illustrate the problem – which does not affect judges, but strictly their students competing before them.

Things have changed since 1984. The Competing Pipers Association (CPA) and the Scottish Solo Piping Judges Association actively request that competitors and teacher-judges declare their interests. In fact, the policy was part of the CPA’s constitution in 1976, and in the association’s Code of Conduct it’s clause #1:

“As a measure of respect to fellow competitors, it is expected that members do not compete in front of their teachers. This would include occasionally withdrawing from a competition members are otherwise eligible to compete in.”

I’m not sure why the CPA puts the onus on its members, but I assume the organization resigns itself to judges not policing themselves. Perhaps the next clause should be advice to members, e.g. If a member receives instruction from a teacher who insists on judging even when you want to compete in the event, you might want to look for a different teacher.

The Scottish Solo Piping Judges Association, in its Code of Practice for Judges, states:

“The judge should not accept an assignment when it is known in advance that pupils or relatives will be competing.”

But strangely immediately removes its teeth with:

“If judging a pupil or a relative occurs, interest must be declared to fellow judges. Judging should then take place as normal.”

“As normal”? How can things be “normal” when a judge has declared his/her teaching conflict?

I know that the Pipers & Pipe Band Society of Ontario asks judges to declare teaching interests when they complete their availability form.

In each instance, it’s an honour system. They ask that judges and players avoid situations like the one I described. They are not “rules,” but policies.

Why do they have such a policy? Are they trying to deny judges gigs at competitions? Are they working to tamp down their egos? Do they want to prevent people from making money by teaching and/or judging?

Of course not. They have such a policy not to protect the judge, but to protect the deserving competitor who might be awarded a prize by his/her teacher. They know that such a prize is unfair to the prize-winner/student. No matter who they are or how well they played, a student who receives a prize from his/her teacher will receive the suspicion and even contempt of his or her fellow competitors.

Given that, why does the judge-pupil-competitor problem persist? Is the judging ego-trip or money so great that teacher-judges can’t say no? Do they really believe that by stepping aside that they somehow besmirch their reputation, implying that they’re incapable of rendering a fair result? Do they sheepishly think that no one will notice? Do they think it’s a part of piping tradition so therefore should continue?

They try to explain it away:

It’s a bench of three, so I simply abstained from having any say regarding my pupil. Might be true, but no one believes that and, further, how is one less judge fair to your pupil or the other competitors? What’s more, recusing yourself for a specific competitor immediately communicates to the others that that person is your student and, unless they don’t like you, will likely think of the competitor more positively.

Well, I judge my own pupils more harshly, so it’s okay. This is a traditional rationale that is astonishingly wrongheaded and backwards. A competition is supposed to be fair to all, so how on earth is this over-compensation fair to the student?

The best judges are also the best teachers and vice versa. In principle, I agree with this. Good teachers make good judges, particularly for lower-grade competitors. I once bought into the rationale as an excuse for teachers judging their pupils, but have changed my mind. The thinking goes, you can’t have good judges without employing good teachers. Balderdash. That might have held air 20 years ago, but today there is a much greater pool of judges and teachers. Technology has brought out many more teachers, and “instruction” can now take the form of archive recordings of performances from today, yesterday and 50 years ago. Good teachers can and should adjudicate. Just don’t judge your pupils.

There won’t be enough judges to go around. Nonsense. Judges can always be shifted or sourced, provided the declaration of contact is known in advance with enough time to assign or source accordingly. In fact, the more we can avoid perceptions of conflict in judging, the more qualified people might be encouraged to become adjudicators.

If teachers are prohibited from judging pupils, then where will it end? Banning reedmakers? Army cronies? Good friends? These are familiar tactics hauled out routinely to try to scare off change, attempting to create a vision of a dystopian piping world without enough qualified judges to go around. One issue at a time, and each issue should be considered on its own, as each issue is very different, and opinions on whether each is permissible or acceptable vary widely.

pipes|drums is conducting its own informal referendum on the teacher-judge matter. With Yes or No being the only options, in response to the simple question “Should teachers judge their pupils in competition?” at the time of the publication of this piece, 80% so far say No. Eighty percent. And yet the practice continues.

“Teacher” in this context needs defining. Teaching comes . . .