... in the inbox this morning. Focused entirely on our views of our own state referee administrations. Thoughts?
It doesn't even ask you which state you are registered in. I'm curious if the links we received are the same - did your link end in L6V9NZM?
Yes that is where you end up, but you are actually going to ussoccer.com with what looks like 100 digit hexadecimal number. I would guess that they know exactly who you are when you get there.
I am also offended that everything is a question, but the responses are of the agree/disagree variety. You may agree with a statement, not a question.
That was quite the survey. It doesn't really try to hide what they're looking for. I'm choosing not to do it since I registered in MN in 2017 and NC in 2018. I have better things to say about one vs the other, but I don't know what state the survey will go for/against.
What’s wrong with the idea? The fact of the matter is the State Referee Committees of a significant number of State Associations are comprised of out-of-touch, baby boomers who either never played the game or weren’t as successful back in their “glory days”. It’s like this; let’s say a young referee - one who not only has a knack for the job but has also proven himself through the games he / she has done up to that point in their career - approaches a member of his SRC and expresses a desire to be a National or FIFA? How can somebody who has never gone through the process offer guidance on how to accomplish that objective given the one giving said advice has never gone through it?
Who gets offended by that? Please explain to everybody how the purpose of a survey like this - one specifically design to measure a concept in a QUANTITIVE manner - is insulting? This is Research Methods 101, bro. All surveys are designed like this. You can’t measure qualitative concepts which is exactly what you would have if the survey allowed for comment.
At this point, with the way things stand now, nobody has gone through the process. I've lost count of the times I've heard someone make a statement along the lines of "I'm a former FIFA official [insert other positions such as former MLS referee/current PRO employee/USSF national coach, etc. etc, as you see fit], and I can't tell you the right path for moving up toward (or maintaining) National certification is right now." I won't quibble with the assertion that some state associations need reform because surely some (or many?) do. But the implication that more control from the federation is the answer, given the opaque nature of things at the top right now, is one that many people who deal directly with Chicago might take issue with. So if this is designed to institute reform to benefit the masses--the 98% of referees who don't move up the ladder--fine. Honestly, given the fact that the federation is supposed to serve all referees, I've got no problem with that. But we shouldn't assume or pretend this is about streamlining the "National Referee Program." If it was, to begin with, this wouldn't be a mass survey. Moreover, if it was, the states aren't the big issue right now.
You’re 100% right; it’s not solely about streamlining a process, National Referees, etc. I was merely using it as an example. I apologize for not clarifying. Good contribution to the conversation / topic by you though!
From a design standpoint, the survey is not well designed. Insulting? No. Poorly designed? Yes. The first item is a question :"Do you believe that there is a general lack of oversight in the administration of your state referee association/program?" You cannot agree or disagree with that. Its a question. The answer is either "Yes/No/I do not have enough information to answer the question." Agree or disagree doesnt really make sense. In addition, most of the questions are "Do you believe something negative is going on?" They are written in a slanted way. In reading the questions its seems clear they want evidence to back up their belief that something is wrong. At least that's what I took as first impression in reading the questions. There may or may not be something wrong, but they are fishing for evidence that something is wrong.
Not taking a side on being offended but in my opinion it was worded or designed the way it was to be confusing. The way I read many of the questions it seemed to me that you had to agree with a negative or disagree with a positive - no reason to do that. As it is if the results do not come back a certain way then they can reissue the survey saying it was confusing. I am NOT saying anyone is trying to manipulate anything as I do not know, it just seems a very odd way to try to gather unbiased data.
One more thing if I may; specifically, regarding the part of the link you redacted. What are the first and last characters? Mind look like this: “gs=6e....e7” Are yours the same or different?
Offended is probably the wrong word for me, but Dayton Ref is correct. The ordinary use of likert type scales like this is to have a statement "(T)here is a general lack of oversight in the administration of your state referee association/program". Strongly agree ... strongly disagree. Nine of the questions are negatively worded, the other three are in some ways more general. Questionnaires that are not design with an agenda usually have a balance between positive and negative statements. The three questions that aren't clearly negative are: Do you believe that your state referee association is in alignment with the U.S. Soccer referee Program policy? Do you feel that there is a clear and defined pathway for referee development and advancement in the current referee landscape? Do you believe that the current referee program in the country reflects the current soccer landscape of the United States? If you think the National program is the problem and answer in that regard, how would anyone know?
I actually don’t disagree with you. I highly doubt anybody at U.S. Soccer has a comprehensive understanding with regards research methods, how to formulate questions that are objective, etc.
What's the end goal of USSF? Anyone have any guesses? Is this all about streamlining the state/national track refs? Or is this something involving the 99%?
Ever had a discussion about your State Referee Committee with a U.S. Soccer employee who’s first name starts with an “R” and ends with a “K”? Last name starts with an “E” and ends with a “Y”. Needless to say, I have and the conversation and this survey tell me a lot about the U.S. Soccer’s end game.
Do I dare ask what good ol' Ricky has to say about our SRC's? I unsubscribed from US Soccer Referee emails so I did not receive the survey email. Or any email since may.
Based on this thread it would seem Chicago has decided to assert more control at the state level: Source for 2017 LOTG This survey looks like an attempt to justify that approach.
What manner of email carried this link? Last Referee Program Update I have is Oct 1, but perhaps I'm not sniffing the same glue as you guys.
Sorry everyone I'm married to a teacher who has to deal with poorly designed standardized tests and see overly stress kids trying to pass a test to be passed to the next grade when the questions are, well bad. When I see stuff like this I get really angry because this should have been easy to be good, not excellent.