Derived Achievement

Over the years we have guided you through a myriad of steps in the application of derived achievement as a basic principle for scoring. Essentially, the "how" score has always been derived from the value/score given in the "what" sub-caption. We still hold to this principle. However, it is appropriate that we EXPAND upon its application.

A LITTLE BACKGROUND INFO: The Education Committee instructors expressed their own concerns and those of the community about the fact that caption rankings aren't "changing" based on noticeably different performances. It appears that a weak performance might yield a .2 difference between the "what" and the "how," and a great performance might yield the same number in both sub-captions. Essentially, this will usually NOT change the guards overall ranking within the caption.

So What's the Solution?

• In applying the "how" score, utilize the scoring range of a full point down to .4 over the "what" number.



• Expand your "neighborhoods" to 5 or 6 guards (where appropriate) allowing yourself a greater opportunity to rank within sub-captions. If this is applied, then the ranking within the sub-captions will support a stronger profile, performer achievement will be properly rewarded, and derived achievement will still remain in tact.



• Essentially, bring a little bit more purity to each sub-caption.

OBVIOUSLY, Judges must recognize that scores must always be warranted and never contrived.

Applying This Concept at Championships

There is a belief by some that because the guards are at Championship, their performance level will be at its highest and as a result they are reluctant to reflect achievement scores much lower than a couple of tenths below the what sub-caption. This is NOT always the case. Judges MUST reward those groups who ARE achieving, and offer an ACCURATE reflection of score for those whose achievement is lacking.

THE PERFORMERS DESERVE TO KNOW THAT THEY CAN CONTRIBUTE TO EACH CAPTION'S OUTCOME.