National Federation Exam - open or closed book

[silverfox]

When your local board gives the annual federation written
examination to your members, what are the conditions under which the exam is written?
One date, one location,formal setting with a supervisor/proctor and no communication between members ?
OR
TAKE HOME and complete the exam with interaction between
members in order to complete and compare answers. Must be handed in at next board meeting.

WHO SHOULD MAKE THIS DECISION ?

[JRutledge]

When your local board gives the annual federation written
examination to your members, what are the conditions under which the exam is written?

I am not sure what you mean by local board, but our NF Tests are given strictly by the State (Illinois High School Association). The Part 1 is completely open book and must be turned in by a certain date. If the mail is running properly, we have a little over a month to do this. The Part 2 Exam can be open or closed depending on what promotion level you are trying to achieve. Promotion is the only reason we use the Part 2 Exam. If you have reached the highest promotion level, you will never have to take the Part 2 again as long as you pay dues and achieve all other requirements that the IHSA has set out.


WHO SHOULD MAKE THIS DECISION ?

Whoever gives you a license or games. I would assume for most this is the states that set the requirements, because they are directly representated by the NF. If an local association requires some other things, that probably has more do to with being a member of that organization.

[woolnojg]

Part 1 is open book. 1-2 weeks to finish then one meeting going over the test. Usually many "discussions" about intent, idiots, changes, etc...

Part 2 is closed book, proctored. One date, 2 locations.
Minimum score of 80 to maitain active standing (no "rookie" school).
All officials take the exam, no exceptions.

[stewcall]

In my Rookie Year (this past) I was required to take part 1 and part 2- closed book- proctored- no talking. and yes I am proud of my two 94!

Ok next year sounds like a different story- test given on one night- open book- small table discussions-

Hey I was glad I did it the way required for my Rookie year and would gladly keep doing it that way.

I worked on the rules and the mechanics all year long- I plan to continue
Stewcall in VA

[Nevadaref]

I thought the way our association handled the NF exam was a joke and I told the commissioner so.
We gave part I as a closed book, no talking test at a meeting. Officials were required to score a 74 or above to officiate varsity games. If you missed this test date, you could take the make-up which was part II given a couple of weeks later or on an individual basis.
Also, the association by-laws state that an official must score a 90 or above in order to work post-season games.
Other than using part I, which was available with answers on the internet before the test date, this was okay.
Then things went downhill. It was discovered that only about 10 officials scored over 90 and 3 of them had less than 2 years of seniority with the association. So here is how the board handled it. They gave out part II to everyone at the next meeting and said it was a take home test and that if you didn't score above 90 on the first one and wanted to work post-season you had to fill this one out and hand it in to a board member later in the season. Yikes! So the people who failed the test the first time would now be working post-season. This was so obviously a political move to allow many veteran officials to continue to work post-season. Also, the association board refused to publish a list of all members original test scores.
But to top it off, the board went and changed the by-laws at the last meeting of the season. One of those changes was dropping the requirement that officials score a 90 to work post-season. There is now no requirement at all (other than being chosen by the commissioner).
In short the NF exam is now meaningless in Nevada.

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by Nevadaref


It was discovered that only about 10 officials scored over 90 and 3 of them had less than 2 years of seniority with the association.

Would these 10 officials been able to cover all post-season games?

And if this is not the case, what would you suggest be done?

Peace

[Tim Roden]

In Texas and Colorado, where I have officiated, The test is given on a certain date at a certain time with a supervisor. But it is open book, open neighbor. We sit around tables in a cafateria discuss the questions arguing the answers for a couple hours and then we turn it in. This year I scored the highest in my chapter with a 95 and didn't get a playoff game. I think that is rediculus and should have got something!!!! ok, seriously. My work schedule was bad and didn't allow me to call enough games this year to deserve a playoff game.

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by JRutledge

Would these 10 officials been able to cover all post-season games?

And if this is not the case, what would you suggest be done?

Peace

Rut, once again you make a good point. I takes about 25 officials to work the local playoffs. Therefore, the commissioner was in trouble. I did not like the solution they used and criticized it, however I failed to give an alternative or state what I would have liked to see done. Not that they would have listened to me, since I was one of those 3 guys with little seniority, but I should have done so.
Since you asked, I would have made the next 15 best scores eligible and gone with those 25.
Since one cannot pull out a rulebook on the court and look up a rule, I don't support allowing officials to use one during a rules knowledge test. I also don't like the T or F format of the NF test, I like the IAABO one that gives a play and the call and asks "Is the official correct?"
I'm for making the test as close to a real game situation as possible.

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by Nevadaref
Rut, once again you make a good point. I takes about 25 officials to work the local playoffs. Therefore, the commissioner was in trouble. I did not like the solution they used and criticized it, however I failed to give an alternative or state what I would have liked to see done. Not that they would have listened to me, since I was one of those 3 guys with little seniority, but I should have done so.
Since you asked, I would have made the next 15 best scores eligible and gone with those 25.
Since one cannot pull out a rulebook on the court and look up a rule, I don't support allowing officials to use one during a rules knowledge test. I also don't like the T or F format of the NF test, I like the IAABO one that gives a play and the call and asks "Is the official correct?"
I'm for making the test as close to a real game situation as possible.

That is why I have always been opposed to using test as single determiners for playoff or advancement purposes. Yes you need to know the rules, but as you say you do not have the benefit of looking something up while the game is going on. And I really agree that they need to get much more detailed to test true knowledge. Now your boards process might not have been fair, but I understand why they did that. You do not want guys out there that only can pass a test and doing games that are of that magnitude. Not to suggest that you could not have done a good job, but if anything screwy would have taken place, they would have blamed your experience level.

Peace

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by JRutledge

Not to suggest that you could not have done a good job, but if anything screwy would have taken place, they would have blamed your experience level.

Peace

Just to give you a bit of info on me, I worked for five seasons back east before moving out here. Since you have written that you moved and had to break in with a new association/assignors yourself, I thought I'd ask your advice on this.
I have felt very frustrated, since I did many games back east and now have to go back to the bottom of the totem pole with these guys. Many of whom I don't believe are quality officials. It has been made clear to me that years in Nevada are far more important than total years of experience. For example, a fourth year and a third year official out here worked playoff games and neither of them has ever worked anywhere else. I am not alone in this situation either. A few CA transfers who have good experience and a UT guy that I think is excellent sat on the side and watched those with more years in the local association, too.
And to be fair, I'll admit that because I did not get any play-off games this past season, that definitely has something to do with how I now feel about what I think was the mishandling of the testing/eligibility back in the beginning.

[JRutledge]

I only moved from one part of Illinois to another part of Illinois. I do not consider my move to be the same. And in Illinois belonging to Official's Associations are formalities. You work only for assignors, not the association. The state gives out our playoffs, not one orgainization that had direct interest in who gets the games or not or assigning friends or people that they like. Associations are training organizations and a couple of organizations had lawyers rewrite their constitutions to reflect just that. Honestly I do not know what I would do if one person had my career in their hands. I mean there are people that cannot invite a coach to their associations meetings without controversy.

But around here we do have officials that come from other states. Each assignor is different in how they handle that, but if you have proof of previous experience, many assignors might give you some games to prove yourself. That is what happen to me. I went to about 5 or 6 camps my first full year working up here (sorry mick ) and try to sell my abilities as much as I could and what I had accomplished before I moved up there. But I had proof of my years of experience, but my ability was harder to prove. But I recieved varsity my first year being here, but an association had no direct affect on me getting that. But I feel your pain and understand your frustration. But I am not the perfect person to help you completely understand what to do in your area. All I did was make phone calls and talk to officials around me to figure out the system, and worked it to the best of my ability. It worked out for me, but might not work out for others. Just work hard, I am sure some things will turn around.

Peace

[scottk_61]

Originally posted by silverfox
When your local board gives the annual federation written
examination to your members, what are the conditions under which the exam is written?
One date, one location,formal setting with a supervisor/proctor and no communication between members ?
OR
TAKE HOME and complete the exam with interaction between
members in order to complete and compare answers. Must be handed in at next board meeting.

WHO SHOULD MAKE THIS DECISION ?

Ours in Florida is part one is take home and optional as to turning it in,
part 2 is closed book, no talking and proctored this is mandated by the FHSAA
In our association, an 85 is required to work Varsity though the state only requires an 80 to work state finals games.
I like it that way

[zebraman]

Around here, part I is open book. You have to get a 70 or above to work school games.

Z

[ROMANO]

In israel we are doing the FIBA TEST 2 times a year without books Minimum score of 80 to pass .
we call this test "american test" you know with 4 answers(a. b. c. d.)how do you call it?..

[Jay R]

Originally posted by ROMANO
In israel we are doing the FIBA TEST 2 times a year without books Minimum score of 80 to pass .
we call this test "american test" you know with 4 answers(a. b. c. d.)how do you call it?..

Multiple choice?