DOCSLIB.ORG

Open Society Institute: You

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Youth Initiatives Grants Education New Visions for Public Schools New Century High Schools Consortium $10,000,000 over a five-year period. New York, New York | $10,000,000 | Five Years | 2001 | http://www.newvisions.org Campaign for Fiscal Equity To support a youth engagement program based on Judge DeGrasse's ruling in January of 2000 in CFE V. State, which challenged New York State's school funding formula. New York, New York | $40,000 | 1 Year | 2001 | http://www.cfequity.org LISTEN A grant to provide general support. Washington, DC | $100,000 | Two Years | 2001 | Funders Collaborative on Youth Organizing A grant to support the program activities of the Collaborative. New York City | $100,000 | One Year | 2001 | Student Press Law Center A grant to provide general support. Arlington, United States | $75,000 | One Year | 2001 | New York University To support the Institute for Education and Social Policy Community Involvement Program. New York, New York | $75,000 | 1 Year | 2002 | http://www.nyu.edu/iesp/programs/community.html © 2009 Open Society Institute. Some rights reserved. Cross City Campaign for Urban School Reform To support youth participation in community organizing for urban school reform. Chicago, Illinois | $50,000 | 1 Year | 2002 | http://www.crosscity.org Philadelphia Student Union To support youth organizing around education reform. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania | $20,000 | 1 Year | 2002 | http://www.phillystudentunion.org Youth in Action To support youth organizing around issues of equity and social justice. Providence, Rhode Island | $20,000 | 1 Year | 2002 | Educational Video Center To support professional development around youth media projects for teachers and community partners in the Bronx New Century Schools. New York, New York | $45,000 | 1 Year | 2003 | Research Foundation of the City University of New York To fund the video documentary, Echoes: A Video-Documentary of Youth Produced Research and Performance on Racial Justice and Public Education Fifty Years After Brown. New York, New York | $24,000 | 1 Year | 2003 | Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) To support the "Invest in Schools/Invest in Kids" project. Brooklyn, NY | $100,000 | One Year | 2004 | http://www.acorn.org/ National Center for Fair and Open Testing (FairTest) To support K–12 assessement reform projects. Boston, MA | $140,000 | 1 Year | 2004 | http://www.fairtest.org Forum for Education and Democracy To support education reform projects. © 2009 Open Society Institute. Some rights reserved. $125,000 | 1 Year | 2004 | http://www.forumforeducation.org/ Public Education Network (PEN) To support hearings in 10 states on the effects of the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act. Washington, DC | $150,000 | 1 Year | 2004 | http://www.publiceducation.org Debate The Barkley Forum, Emory University Atlanta Urban Debate League (AUDL) OSI’s Urban Debate Program is based on the Urban Debate League model founded by the Barkley Forum at Emory University. Begun in 1985, AUDL received OSI funding from 1997 to 1999 to strengthen its capacity and now runs in eleven high schools. Contact: Kara Grant, Program Administrator Email: [email protected] Phone: (404) 727-7178 Atlanta, Georgia | 3 Years | 1998 | Chicago Debate Commission Chicago Urban Debate League Urban debate in Chicago is operated by a unique public/private cooperative called the Chicago Debate Commission (CDC). Formed in 1995 by the Community Renewal Society (CRS), the League of Women Voters, and Phi Beta Kappa, the CDC is composed of a diverse group of business, education, legal and civic leaders in Chicago. CDC received OSI funding from 1997 to 2000. Growing by an average of 5 schools per year, the CDC, now managed by the Chicago Public Schools, operates in 25 schools as of 2001-02. Contact: Barbara Edwards, Administrator, Chicago Public Schools Email: [email protected] Phone: (773)-553-2104 Chicago, Illinois | 3 Years | 1998 | Wayne State University Detroit Public School Debate League The Detroit Public School Debate League was established in 1984 by Wayne State University’s College of Fine, Performing and Communication Arts and the Detroit Public School’s Gifted and Talented Program. To strengthen the program’s capacity, OSI provided funding from 1997-2000. Contact: George Ziegelmueller Email: [email protected] Phone: (313) 577-2950 Detroit, Michigan | 3 Years | 1998 | © 2009 Open Society Institute. Some rights reserved. DEBATE Kansas City Kansas City Urban Debate League The University of Missouri-Kansas City administers DEBATE Kansas City. OSI began funding the program in 1998, and the league currently serves 12 schools in 3 districts: Kansas City, KS; Kansas City, MO; and the Turner District. Contact: Linda Collier, Director of Debate Email: [email protected] Holly Reiss, Project Administrator Email: [email protected] Phone: (816) 235-5267 Kansas City, Missouri | 4 Years | 1999 | University of Alabama - Tuscaloosa Tuscaloosa Debate League The Tuscaloosa Debate League is administered through the University of Alabama Tuscaloosa by the school’s debate team. It operates in all seven local high schools. Beginning in 1997, OSI funded the program for 3 years. Tuscaloosa, Alabama | 2 Years | 1999 | University of California, Berkeley San Francisco Bay Area (BAUD) Administered by the University of California, Berkeley, the Bay Area Urban Debate League works with students in 3 school districts throughout San Francisco and the East Bay. Founded in 1999, BAUD now runs in sixteen high schools. Contact: Freya Thimson, Program Director Email: [email protected] Mike Clough, Executive Chair Email: [email protected] Phone: (510) 643-4525 Berkeley, California | 4 Years | 1999 | University of Missouri - St. Louis Urban Debate League - St. Louis Founded in 1998, the Urban Debate League - St. Louis is administered through a partnership with the University of Missouri, St. Louis and the St. Louis Public Schools and currently serves 11 schools in the city. Contact: Paulette Kirkwood, Communications Arts Facilitator, St. Louis Public Schools Email: [email protected] St. Louis, Missouri | 4 Years | 1999 | Bronx Defenders New York Urban Debate League, Bronx Resource Center The Bronx Defenders is a public defender organization serving indigent clients in the Bronx that have been charged with crimes. OSI began providing funds to the Bronx Defenders in 2000 to establish and house a resource center for debaters in the Bronx. © 2009 Open Society Institute. Some rights reserved. Contact: Sarah Ryan, Coordinator Email: [email protected] Phone: (718) 838-7831 Bronx, New York | 4 Years | 2000 | Brown University, Swearer Center for Public Service Providence Urban Debate League (PUDL) The Providence Urban Debate League is managed through the Swearer Center for Public Service at Brown University. Operating in three high schools for a year prior to OSI funding, which began in 2000, PUDL has expanded to serve 9 high schools in Providence. The Swearer Center has an extensive menu of outreach and youth programs in the community, which serve to bolster PUDL and integrate debate into the Center’s larger mission of advocacy and public service. Contact: Lisa Heller, Director Email: [email protected] Phone: (401) 863-9836 Providence, Rhode Island | 4 Years | 2000 | California State University at Fullerton The Southern California UDL is organized and supported by California State University-Fullertion. Launched in 2000, the program now operates in seven school districts spanning several urban communities in Orange and Los Angeles Counties. It now also works with schools in the central Los Angeles Unified School District. Contact: Sylvia Beltran, Executive Director Email: [email protected] Phone: 714-278-7239 Los Angeles, California | 4 Years | 2000 | Claremont McKenna College Claremont Colleges Debate Outreach (CCDO) Claremont McKenna College supports schools in San Bernardino County and Riverside County. The CCDO works in both high schools and middle schools. Contact: Kate Shuster, Director Email: [email protected] Phone: 909-607-9383 Claremont, California | 3 Years | 2000 | FOCUS Hispanic Center for Community Development Jersey Urban Debate League (JUDL) Administered through the FOCUS Hispanic Center for Community Development, the New Jersey Urban Debate League operates in 10 high schools in Newark. In the future, JUDL plans to expand into 9 cities in Northern New Jersey. Contact: Brent Farrand, Executive Director Sandra DeLeon, Program Administrator © 2009 Open Society Institute. Some rights reserved. Email: [email protected] Phone: (973) 268-5112 Newark, New Jersey | 3 Years | 2001 | Improving Mentor Practices and Communication Techniques (IMPACT) New York Urban Debate League (NYUDL) Initially launched in 15 schools in 1997 and administered as an operational program of OSI, the New York Urban Debate League is now run by the IMPACT Coalition. The NYUDL operates in 45 high schools in New York City in all 5 boroughs. Contact: Will Baker, Chief Executive Officer Email: [email protected] Phone: (212) 702-0944 New York, New York | 3 Years | 2001 | American University Washington College of Law Marshall-Brennan Urban Debate League (MBUDL) The MBUDL is a collaborative project of 2 universities—the American University Washington College of Law, and the University of the District of Columbia. The MBUDL represents a unique collaboration of University partners who each bring important strengths and resources to the endeavor. Washington, D.C. |
Recommended publications
  • Debate Tips & Tricks

    Debate Tips & Tricks

    Debate Tips & Tricks – Rhode Island Urban Debate League 2019/02/14 623 Home About Us ∠ For Debaters & Coaches ∠ News & Events ∠ Join the Movement Debate Tips & Tricks Partners & Partner Supporters: Schools: Alvarez Central Click Here to download Debate 101: This is a helpful guide to Policy Debate written by Bill & Will Smelko detailing everything 3 you need to know from Rudiments of Rhetoric to Debate Theory. E 5 tips to help you win Juanita every debate round: Sanchez 1. Think as if you were your judge, not yourself. Remember, the only person whose opinion matters at Mount the end of the round is the judge’s, not yours! A Pleasant common mistake everyone in public speaking makes is assuming that because you understand the argument that your audience does as well. Take into account the Paul Cuffee judge’s debate experience before using a lot of debate http://www.riudl.org/debate-tips-tricks/ Page 1 of 4 Debate Tips & Tricks – Rhode Island Urban Debate League 2019/02/14 623 lingo, and make sure you look up at your judge while making a key point. This will both reinforce your argument because of the eye contact you will make, and it will allow you to look for signals from the judge (ie, Woonsocket shaking her head) that she understands you. 2. Always think comparatively. Every argument that you make, at the end of the round, will be compared against something the other team said. If you’re affirmative, for example, you should always be thinking in the mindset of “how does my plan compare to the status quo?” [i.e., doing nothing, what the negative frequently advocates].
  • Lehigh University's Project Impact: an Environmental Management Case Study

    Lehigh University's Project Impact: an Environmental Management Case Study

    The Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention Funded by the U.S. Department of Education, with supplemental funding from The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Reprinted from Journal of Drug Education and Awareness, 2003, Vol. 1, pp. 59-75, with permission of Nova Science Publishers, Inc., 400 Oser Avenue, Suite 1600, Hauppauge, NY 11788. Tel: 631- 231-7269; Fax: 631-231-8175; e-mail: [email protected], [email protected]; Web: www.novapublishers.com. Reprinted by the Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention • (800) 676-1730 • www.higheredcenter.org 60 John W. Smeaton, Madalyn C. Eadline, Brenda Egolf and William DeJong LEHIGH UNIVERSITY'S PROJECT IMPACT: AN ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CASE STUDY High-risk drinking has been a long-standing problem on U.S. college campuses. According to national surveys of college students conducted by the Harvard School of Public Health, approximately 44% of college students engage in heavy, episodic drinking, which is defined for males as five or more drinks in a row within a two-week period, and as four or more drinks for females. 1, 2 About half of these heavy drinkers, or about one in five students overall, can be classified as frequent heavy drinkers, meaning that they drink at this level three or more times during a two-week period. These drinkers account for approximately 68% of all alcohol consumption by U.S. college students. 3 Progress in reducing heavy, episodic drinking among college students has been slow. One positive note is an increase in the percentage of students who abstain from drinking.
  • Why Do Parties Cooperate in Presidentialism?

    Why Do Parties Cooperate in Presidentialism?

    WHY DO PARTIES COOPERATE IN PRESIDENTIALISM? ELECTORAL AND GOVERNMENT COALITION FORMATION IN LATIN AMERICA ¿Por qué los partidos cooperan en sistemas presidenciales? Formación de coaliciones electorales y de gobierno en América Latina KENNETH BUNKER Universitá degli Studi di Milano [email protected] Cómo citar/Citation Bunker, K. (2019). Why do parties cooperate in presidentialism? Electoral and government coalition formation in Latin America. Revista de Estudios Políticos, 186, 171-199. doi: https://doi.org/10.18042/cepc/rep.186.06 Abstract The purpose of this article is to explore coalition formation in presidential sys- tems using evidence from Latin America. It puts forward three hypotheses based on formateur power, electoral structures and party systems to explore when and why electoral and government coalition formation occurs. It uses evidence stemming from eighteen democratic presidential regimes in Latin America from 1980 to 2010. It looks at 100 elections and 407 aggregate years of democratic government. It anal- yses data organized in a cross-sectional time-series fashion through a logit function with random effects and robust standard errors. It finds that in democracies with weak presidents, restrictive electoral rules and highly fragmented party systems, the president will seek the support of multiple parties. While the effective number of par- ties is the most important determinant, rules related to legislative elections are more important predictors of electoral coalitions, and those related to presidential elections are more important predictors of government coalitions. The findings in this article are important insofar as yielding critical insight into partisan strategies in both the run-up to elections and the maintenance of governments, as well as contributing to a general theory of coalition formation.
  • Urban Debate Newsblast March 2007 Vol

    Urban Debate Newsblast March 2007 Vol

    Urban Debate NewsBlast March 2007 Vol. II, No. 1 You are receiving this NewsBlast because you are a believer in and backer of urban debate and the National Association for Urban Debate Leagues. We thank you very much for that support. Through our NewsBlasts, we intend to keep you aware of the highlights of the work of the NAUDL, and of the state of urban debate in the U.S. The NAUDL upholds and advances the urban debate mission by building, institutionalizing, expanding, and connecting Urban Debate Leagues. Your support helps make it possible for us to serve thousands of urban youth across the country. We also would welcome and look forward to your feedback. Please email us at [email protected] or call (312-427-8101) with your views. The NAUDL Launches Three Year Expansion Plan with New UDLs and a National Championship Among Objectives Over the past several years the NAUDL has focused hard on its mission of increasing the number of urban students participating in debate programs. Its reach has effectively been restricted, however, by the organization’s limited “bandwith” – the fact that Executive Director Les Lynn, with some modest assistance from the board, part-time staff and volunteers, has essentially been working alone. The NAUDL has embraced an ambitious Expansion Plan that seeks dramatically to expand the organization’s bandwith over the next several years. Its goals include establishing seven new Leagues in seven major cities, institutionalizing an additional four existing leagues, developing debate-related curricula, and, beginning in May 2008, hosting a National Urban Debate Championship.
  • Download File

    Download File

    BIG LEARNING IN SMALL COMMUNITIES: EXPLORING WITH YPAR IN INTERNATIONAL SCHOOLS Lora Elaine Hawkins Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy under the Executive Committee of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 2021 © 2021 Lora Hawkins All Rights Reserved ABSTRACT BIG LEARNING IN SMALL COMMUNITIES: EXPLORING WITH YPAR IN INTERNATIONAL SCHOOLS Lora Hawkins This study is a critical evaluation conducted by a Youth-led Participatory Action research team that has, over the course of five years, sought to investigate culturally responsive pedagogies in international schools populated with Third Culture Kids. Previous to this work, the youth researchers and I developed an interdisciplinary, choice and project-based honors program which we called the Small Learning Community. As such, this program became the object of and context for this review. We were guided by the question, What are, if any, the perceived learning benefits for students in the Small Learning Community?, and we sought to critically evaluate the program’s perceived impact on meaningful learning experiences, student agency, and transference of skills. We leveraged constructivist-oriented Grounded Theory—in part because of the value this approach assigns to emic knowledge—to examine interview transcripts of SLC participants. I then developed case studies and argue for pedagogical shifts in the international classroom that center more deliberately on (1) active participation, (2) the perception of new, (3) choice, (4) attention to process, (5) personal interest, and (6) social emotional learning, while addressing the need for more intentional and systematic practitioner research. TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES………………………………………………………………………….
  • 2015 Starter Packet SSRA Aff and Terrorism Disadvantage

    2015 Starter Packet SSRA Aff and Terrorism Disadvantage

    2015 Atlanta Urban Debate League Starter Evidence Packet (SSRA Affirmative and Terrorism Disadvantage) 2015 Starter Packet SSRA Aff and Terrorism Disadvantage Topic – Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially curtail its domestic surveillance. More resources at 1 2015 Atlanta Urban Debate League Starter Evidence Packet (SSRA Affirmative and Terrorism Disadvantage) Table of Contents ***How To***............................................................................................................................................. 4 What Is Policy Debate? ............................................................................................................................. 5 Speeches and Speech Order ..................................................................................................................... 6 The Constructive Speeches ....................................................................................................................... 7 The Rebuttal Speeches .............................................................................................................................. 9 How to write a block and why? .............................................................................................................. 12 Judge Adaptation ...................................................................................................................................... 14 Cutting Cards .........................................................................................................................................
  • Participating in a Policy Debate Program and Academic Achievement Among At-Risk Adolescents in an Urban Public School District: 1997–2007

    Participating in a Policy Debate Program and Academic Achievement Among At-Risk Adolescents in an Urban Public School District: 1997–2007

    Journal of Adolescence xxx (2012) 1–11 Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect Journal of Adolescence journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jado Participating in a policy debate program and academic achievement among at-risk adolescents in an urban public school district: 1997–2007 Susannah Anderson a, Briana Mezuk b,* a Department of Global Community Health and Behavioral Sciences, Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, USA b Department of Epidemiology and Community Health, Virginia Commonwealth University, USA abstract Keywords: This study investigates the relationship between participating in a high school debate Adolescent program on college-readiness in the Chicago Public School district over a 10-year period. Education At-risk school students were identified using an index including 8th grade achievement, Debate poverty status, and enrollment in special education. Regression analyses were used to Graduation assess the association between debate participation and graduation and ACT performance. At-risk Overall, debaters were 3.1 times more likely to graduate from high school (95% confidence interval: 2.7–3.5) than non-debaters, and more likely to reach the college-readiness benchmarks on the English, Reading, and Science portions of the ACT. This association was similar for both low-risk and at-risk students. Debate intensity was positively related to higher scores on all sections of the ACT. Findings indicate that debate participation is associated with improved academic performance for at-risk adolescents. Ó 2012 The Foundation for Professionals in Services for Adolescents. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Introduction There are substantial disparities in educational attainment according to race, income, geography and ethnicity.
  • Subsystem Interconnectedness As Part of Coalition Strategies for Policy Change: Mining and Water Management in Ecuador Between 1991 and 2010

    Subsystem Interconnectedness As Part of Coalition Strategies for Policy Change: Mining and Water Management in Ecuador Between 1991 and 2010

    Subsystem interconnectedness as part of coalition strategies for policy change: mining and water management in Ecuador between 1991 and 2010. Paúl Cisneros*† 1. Introduction The policy subsystem is the main unit of analysis in several theoretical frameworks that study policy processes including Punctuated Equilibrium, Social Construction and Policy Design and the Advocacy Coalition Framework (Jochim & May, 2009) . For over a decade, scholars refining these frameworks have focused on the emergence, change, and destruction of subsystems, paying little attention to interactions between subsystems as a potential avenue for policy change (Jones & Jenkins-Smith, 2009). More recently, scholars working within the research program of the ACF have expressed interest in exploring "subsystem interconnectedness and how exogenous drivers intervene with internal subsystem factors in producing policy change" Douglas, Ingold, Nohrstedt, and Weible (2014, p. 306). These studies show how coalitions use interactions between levels of governance to maintain their preferred policies in specific subsystems (Montefrio, 2014) and how opportunity structures impact coalition strategies in different types of subsystems (Gupta, 2014). Our study is inscribed in this emerging literature and explores subsystem interconnectedness as part of coalition strategies to attempt policy change. In this paper we show that studying subsystem interconnectedness could be of particular importance to understand policy change in nascent subsystems in unstable political environments. Drawing from social movements literature (Meyer, 2005; Tarrow, 2011), we argue that regime instability opens opportunities for revisionist coalitions to strategize the interactions between new or existing subsystems and the macro system in order to advance their policy objectives. These strategies should be more prevalent where subsystems do not enjoy great autonomy and complex policy communities have not yet developed.
  • United States of America Before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

    United States of America Before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION ) Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C. ) Docket No. CP-11-161-000 ) REQUEST FOR REHEARING SUBMITTED BY DELAWARE RIVERKEEPER NETWORK, NEW JERSEY HIGHLANDS COALITION, and THE NEW JERSEY CHAPTER OF THE SIERRA CLUB Pursuant to Rule 713 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“Commission”), 18 C.F.R. § 385.713 (2010), Delaware Riverkeeper Network, New Jersey Highlands Coalition, and the New Jersey Chapter of the Sierra Club (collectively “Intervenors”) hereby request rehearing and rescission of the Commission’s May 29, 2012 Order (“Order”) granting a Certificate of Public Necessity and Convenience (“Certificate”) to Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C. (“Tennessee”) to construct the Northeast Upgrade Project (“NEUP” or “Project”). Intervenors seek rehearing and rescission of the Commission’s Order because the environmental review underlying the conclusions in the Order fails to meet the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq. (2006), and its implementing regulations, 40 C.F.R. Pts. 1500-08. Based on this flawed environmental review, the Commission improperly determined that the public benefits of the NEUP outweigh its adverse impacts, thus violating the Natural Gas Act (“NGA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 717f (2006) and its implementing regulations, 18 C.F.R. Part 157 (2011). I. Statement of Relevant Facts Tennessee filed an application on March 31, 2011, for a Certificate authorizing the company to construct, install, modify, operate, and maintain the components of the NEUP in 1 Pennsylvania and New Jersey.
  • State Asset Building Coalitions: Perspectives from the Field

    State Asset Building Coalitions: Perspectives from the Field

    state asset building coalitions Perspectives from the Field Financial Security College Completion Thriving Communities Equity Increased Savings Business Growth Wealth Building Economic Development Security Economic Stability Expanded Home Ownership Family Well-Being The Institute on Assets and Social Policy | The Heller School for Social Policy and Management | Brandeis University | 2013 What happens when people in states collaborate to advance new policies, innovations, and investments to create economic opportunity and build a more stable financial future for all? The Institute on Assets and Social Policy conducts strategically framed research, evaluations, and analysis to inform policy and institutional change, enabling vulnerable populations to build resources and access opportunities to live securely, and participate fully in all aspects of social and economic life. This report was prepared by Janet Boguslaw, Martha Cronin, and Elizabeth Paulhus of the Institute on Assets and Social Policy (IASP), The Heller School for Social Policy and Management, Brandeis University. Acknowledgements The authors would like to acknowledge the many people who contributed to this peer learning process over the years through their participation in the Mott Learning Initiative, more than we can note here. We want to especially thank the following whose work and commitment is reflected here through their many contributions over the years, and who aided the development of this report: Don Baylor, Center for Public Policy Priorities Stephanie Bowman, Washington
  • Piecing Together Coalition War: Threat, Politics, and Coalition Structure

    Piecing Together Coalition War: Threat, Politics, and Coalition Structure

    University of Kentucky UKnowledge Theses and Dissertations--Political Science Political Science 2020 Piecing Together Coalition War: Threat, Politics, and Coalition Structure Stephen Joiner University of Kentucky, [email protected] Digital Object Identifier: https://doi.org/10.13023/etd.2020.246 Right click to open a feedback form in a new tab to let us know how this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Joiner, Stephen, "Piecing Together Coalition War: Threat, Politics, and Coalition Structure" (2020). Theses and Dissertations--Political Science. 31. https://uknowledge.uky.edu/polysci_etds/31 This Doctoral Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Political Science at UKnowledge. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations--Political Science by an authorized administrator of UKnowledge. For more information, please contact [email protected]. STUDENT AGREEMENT: I represent that my thesis or dissertation and abstract are my original work. Proper attribution has been given to all outside sources. I understand that I am solely responsible for obtaining any needed copyright permissions. I have obtained needed written permission statement(s) from the owner(s) of each third-party copyrighted matter to be included in my work, allowing electronic distribution (if such use is not permitted by the fair use doctrine) which will be submitted to UKnowledge as Additional File. I hereby grant to The University of Kentucky and its agents the irrevocable, non-exclusive, and royalty-free license to archive and make accessible my work in whole or in part in all forms of media, now or hereafter known. I agree that the document mentioned above may be made available immediately for worldwide access unless an embargo applies.
  • Metro Memphis Urban Debate League Policies for 2015-16 Season

    Metro Memphis Urban Debate League Policies for 2015-16 Season

    Metro Memphis Urban Debate League Policies for 2015-16 Season 9/13/2015 This handbook contains all rules and regulations governing tournaments for the Metro Memphis Urban Debate League for the 2015-16 season. Contents 1. League Principles 1.1 Origins 1.2 Overall Governance 1.3 Coach-Directed Policy-Making 1.4 Foundational Objective: Participation 1.5 Guiding Principle: Lay Judges 2. League Structure 2.1 Memphis Style 2.2 Divisions 2.3 Student Participation 2.4 Coach Participation 2.5 School Participation 2.6 Roster 2.7 Transitioning Students or Schools 3. Tournament Entry 3.1 Tournament Registration Procedure 3.2 Judge Obligation 3.3 College Student Judges 3.4 Maverick Teams 3.5 Hybrid Teams 3.6 Combining Divisions 3.7 City Championship Awards 4. Tournament Round Procedure 4.1 Punctuality 4.2 Observers 4.3 Use of Electronic Devices 4.4 In-Round Evidence Sharing 4.5 Unethical Use of Evidence 4.6 Closed Out Elimination Rounds 1 4.7 Tag Team Cross Examination 4.8 Prompting 5. Judging Procedure 5.1 Interruption of a Debate Round 5.2 Independent Decisions 5.3 Judge Evidence Reading 5.4 Judge Disclosure and Critique 5.5 Debater-Judge Colloquy 5.6 Speaker Points 6. Argument Limits 6.1 Specific Argument Limits and Core Files 6.2 Argument Limit Enforcement 7. Amending These Rules 8. Rule changes for 2015-16 Note: * denotes a rule that was changed or added at the Debate Centers during the 2009 – 2010 season. Note:** denotes a rule that was changed or added during the 2010 – 2011 season.