REP TEAM EVALUATION PROCESS ASSESSMENT FORM - PARENTS & GUARDIANS
SUMMARY EVALUATION REVIEW
There were 74 Questionnaires completed in total, 13 from the Midget division, 15 from the Bantam division, 22 from the Pee Wee division and 24 from the Atom division.
Most parents want all children to be treated equally and fairly and listed as their second priority, their wish that their child become the best player he or she can be. Approximately 70% of the parents surveyed agreed that the Association was pursuing the right course by introducing the selection process used this season. 85% of the parents felt that the conditioning camp was beneficial to their child and 30% felt that 4, 1 hour sessions was the most beneficial followed by 22% feeling that 2, 1 hour sessions was the appropriate length of time for the conditioning camp. 60% of parents who answered the survey felt that parents and players should stream themselves to the A/B group or the AAA/AA group prior to the evaluation process commencing. 66% of the parents who completed the survey felt that there should be less skill and more game evaluations before teams are selected. Most parents believed that 3 1 ½ hour sessions was an appropriate length of time for the skill sessions. Most parents felt that the 4 x 4 format and 2, 1 ½ hour sessions were the most reasonable opportunities to demonstrate game skills being followed closely by a 5 on 5 format with 2, 1 hour sessions. 53.62% of the parents felt that there should be less than 30 players on the ice during the evaluation sessions. 27.54% felt that there should be not more than 20 players on the ice during the evaluation sessions.
In answering the question dealing with the ranking of criteria for selecting a player, the majority of the parents chose skating first, game play second, puck control third, shooting fourth and physical play last for selection criteria. 32.35% agreed that the current selection criteria considered those skills; 27.94% said that the current selection criteria did not consider those skills; and 39.71% answered that they did not know if the current selection criteria considered those skills. In relation to how best to communicate information to prepare for the evaluation process, there appeared to be an almost equal distribution between all of the suggested options, however, a majority of parents preferred a mail out two weeks in advance of try outs followed closely by distributing information during registration, posting information on the web site, followed by parenting information sessions two weeks in advance and lastly, a parent information session the first night of the conditioning camp.
When considering the best way to identify players, the vast majority of parents felt having players wear numbered sweaters was the best way to identify them during try outs followed by placing players in smaller groups. 48% of the parents felt that 3 1 hour skill sessions was enough time reasonably required to divide players between the AAA/AA group and the A/B group. The vast majority of parents preferred try outs occurring at the Acadia Arena with the second choice being the Kentville arena. 22% of the parents advised they would volunteer to work at evaluation registration. 27% of parents advised they would volunteer in distributing parent/player information. 29% of the parents advised they would volunteer distributing player numbers and sweaters during the evaluation process. 9% of the parents advised they would volunteer working as an on ice evaluator and 14% of parents advised they would volunteer working as an off ice evaluator. 53% of parents advised they would pay increased costs for try outs to facilitate smaller groups and more ice time. 73% of the parents surveyed agreed that their child was placed on the appropriate team.
In relation to the comment section of the Questionnaires, there were three common themes being (a) politics surrounding the selection of players for teams; (b) the perception of bias in relation to the evaluation process and (c) the improvements required to improve the evaluation process. In relation to the comments concerning politics, there is, in the vast majority of the questionnaire where parents wrote comments, a general sense that who parents know, or parents' involvement in minor hockey versus skill, has an influence in player selection. In relation to the comments concerning bias, a number of parents cited issues such as player identification, the location of evaluators on the ice, communication between evaluators and on ice staff and, in one instance, an evaluator and a player, communication between evaluators, and players wearing name bars and elite spring hockey garb during try outs as indicia of bias in the process. Parents who commented on the need for improvements in the selection process cited many of the items identified within the survey such as adequate amount of ice time, reduced numbers, better methods of identification, the requirement for better communication of expectations and results. Finally, and sadly, a small number of parents commented on the negative impact the evaluation process had on their children. There were several positive comments in support of the efforts made by the Board in initiating the promotion system of evaluation with this Association.
Further details of the questionnaire results on a division basis may be obtained upon request.
Initial recommendations have been prepared and are currently under discussion by the Board.
- Lynn Connors
© 2004 Acadia Minor Hockey Association