SayPro Judging Process for the SayPro Monthly January SCDR-3 Dance Competition

SayPro Judging Process for the SayPro Monthly January SCDR-3 Dance Competition

Organized by: SayPro Development Competitions Office
Under the Authority of: SayPro Development Royalty
Target: Recruit 5-7 professional dancers or choreographers to judge across multiple categories
Focus: Timely completion of judging, transparent feedback to participants, ensuring a fair and effective evaluation process

---

🎯 1. Judging Objectives

Objective	Description
Recruitment of 5–7 Judges	Select a diverse panel of expert dancers and choreographers to represent multiple styles and categories of dance.
Timely Judging Process	Ensure the judges complete their assessments within the specified timeframe, enabling the competition to progress smoothly.
Transparent Feedback	Provide clear, constructive feedback to each participant, supporting their development while maintaining fairness.
Fair and Objective Evaluation	Ensure that all entries are judged equally, following a structured, unbiased process.

---

👥 2. Recruitment of Judges (5–7 Professional Dancers or Choreographers)

A. Criteria for Judge Selection

Category	Description
Professional Experience	Judges should have extensive experience in their respective dance styles (5+ years of performance or choreography experience).
Diversity of Dance Styles	Select judges who represent the key dance categories in the competition, including hip-hop, contemporary, traditional, freestyle, and group routines.
Reputation in the Dance Community	Judges should be well-known and respected in their communities or fields, whether locally or nationally.
Pedagogical Experience	It’s beneficial for judges to have teaching experience, as they will be providing feedback and guidance to participants.
Cultural Awareness	Ensure judges are sensitive to cultural nuances, especially in categories like traditional or cultural dance forms.
Availability and Time Commitment	Judges must be available during the competition dates and be committed to providing timely feedback.

B. Recruitment Process

1. Create a List of Potential Judges:
   • Research reputable dancers, choreographers, and dance educators in various communities (national and international).
   • Consult with industry partners, dance networks, and schools for recommendations.
2. Initial Outreach:
   • Send an official invitation email or message, introducing the competition and outlining the expectations (judging roles, timing, categories).
   • Share the event’s goals, mission, and core values to ensure alignment with potential judges.
3. Confirm Judges:
   • Once judges accept the invitation, send a formal contract or agreement detailing their duties, compensation (if applicable), and judging timelines.
4. Brief Judges on Process:
   • Arrange a pre-event meeting or conference call to go over the judging criteria, event schedule, and any logistics.
   • Ensure all judges understand their role, the competition’s structure, and the format of the video submissions.

---

📝 3. Judging Criteria and Evaluation Process

A. Judging Categories

The competition will be broken down into several categories, with judges evaluating each performance based on specific criteria relevant to the style and format.

Category	Criteria
Creativity/Originality	Judges assess how innovative and original the choreography and routine are.
Technique	Evaluation of the dancer’s technical proficiency in movement, posture, alignment, and control.
Style/Expression	Judges look at how well the dancer embodies the dance style and conveys emotion through their performance.
Choreography (Group Performances)	How well the choreography flows, integrates transitions, and showcases the group’s cohesiveness.
Timing/Rhythm	Accuracy in following the music’s rhythm and maintaining consistent timing.
Overall Impact	The judge’s overall feeling about the performance, including their impression of energy, performance quality, and the ability to captivate the audience.

B. Scoring System

Score Range	Description
9–10	Exceptional performance; technically flawless with creative and emotional depth.
7–8	Strong performance with minor flaws or areas for improvement.
5–6	Adequate performance; shows promise but lacks technical or expressive depth.
Below 5	Needs significant improvement; lacks control, expression, or timing.

• Weighting: Different categories may have varying weight, for instance:
  • Creativity: 25%
  • Technique: 30%
  • Expression: 20%
  • Timing/Rhythm: 15%
  • Overall Impact: 10%

C. Video Submission Judging

• Judges will evaluate dance performances via video submissions. They will be provided with:
  • Link to the submission: Participants will upload their videos to a dedicated platform (Google Drive, Dropbox, or other).
  • Clear video guidelines: Ensuring participants know how to frame their videos, include required music, and comply with submission deadlines.

D. Feedback Process

• Constructive Feedback: Judges will be required to provide brief but constructive comments on each participant’s performance, focusing on both strengths and areas for growth. This feedback will be valuable for the dancers’ continued development.
• Private Feedback vs Public Scores: Public scores will be shared with participants during the live broadcast, but detailed feedback will be delivered privately via email to encourage growth without public criticism.

---

⏱️ 4. Timeline for Judging

Phase	Deadline	Action
Judge Selection & Confirmation	1–2 weeks before event	Finalize and confirm the panel of judges
Video Submission Deadline	2–3 days after competition closes	Deadline for all participants to submit videos
Initial Scoring & Judging	Within 5 days of submission deadline	Judges complete scoring and provide feedback
Judging Review Meeting	1 day after scoring completion	Judges meet (virtually or in-person) to finalize and discuss scores
Final Results	1 day before live-streamed results	Final scores tallied and winners announced

---

💬 5. Transparent Feedback Mechanism

A. Judges’ Feedback to Participants

• Standardized Feedback Form: Each judge will complete a feedback form for each participant that addresses:
  • Strengths: What stood out about the performance (technical, emotional, creative).
  • Areas for Improvement: Suggestions for specific ways the participant can enhance their performance for future events.
  • Performance Tips: Quick pointers for dancers to work on outside of the competition.
• Delivery Format: Feedback will be delivered to each participant via email after the competition concludes. A follow-up session with the judges can also be arranged for personalized guidance, if necessary.

B. Judge Transparency

• Anonymous Judging Process: While feedback will be personalized, judges’ names will be kept private to ensure the focus remains on the dancers’ performances.
• No Conflicts of Interest: Judges will be asked to confirm there are no personal or professional ties to any of the participants to maintain impartiality.

---

🔄 6. Post-Event Process

• Post-Event Review: Judges will meet to debrief about the competition, sharing insights into the judging process and the overall experience.
• Feedback Collection from Judges: A short survey will be sent to the judges to collect feedback on the event organization, judging process, and areas for improvement.

---

🎉 7. Judging Recognition

• Certificates of Appreciation: All judges will receive a certificate of participation and recognition for their role in the competition.
• Social Media Shoutouts: A thank-you post will be made across SayPro’s social media platforms, acknowledging the judges’ contributions.