[TJ Mason]

UK Coaching Framework

I was delighted to see two of my photos being used in the latest Archery UK! I was slightly disappointed that my reaction to the UK Coaching Framework wasn't published, though. I've no basis on which to speculate about why my letter wasn't printed, so it would be unfair to do so. But for reference, here it is:

Dear Ann,

As a coach, club secretary and county committee member, I thought I'd better try to get my head around this UK Coaching Framework that we're being asked to sign up to. So I downloaded the available documents from the GNAS website and the Sports Coach UK website and spent a weekend wading through them. I'm deeply concerned about what I've seen.

The documents are full of "dynamic" words and phrases, but are conspicuously light on implementation detail. A phrase like "the right coach, in the right place, at the right time for all archers" sounds inspiring, and who could possibly object to the principle? But back on Earth, how exactly will this be delivered and measured? The implementation details should be considered at an early stage, since they can bite us later on.

The documents are not specific about the requirements that the framework will place on individual coaches. Will there be any requirement to work in schools, for example, during school hours? Can we be sure that the proposals won't require us to put our day jobs at risk, or burn all our annual leave on coaching?

The Coaching Method statement says "The provision of World Class Coaching will be delivered by dedicated licensed coaches". What exactly do they mean by "dedicated"? Does it mean "no day job to get in the way"?

What requirements will the proposals place on clubs? If clubs are to be part of the delivery mechanism, my club (the Phoenix Bowmen) may find itself with responsibilities for delivering a "World Class coaching system for archery" to Halifax, Elland, Sowerby Bridge, Brighouse, Queensbury and other towns. We have just three coaches, and can't even keep up with current demand for beginners courses, never mind fulfilling a Critical Success Factor such as "Coaching delivered meets demand from archers".

Do the authors of the framework hope to see a large rise in the number of coaches? If they bury us in paperwork and excessive demands, and reduce our shooting time further, I assure them they will see a REDUCTION in the number of coaches.

Archery cannot rely on the large numbers of non-playing volunteers that sports like football attract - archery simply doesn't attract significant numbers of non-playing volunteers. Similarly, we can't rely on having retired players working in coaching - when people retire from shooting, they nearly always leave the sport entirely.

The documents talk about the "proactive recruitment of coaches...identify the right people for the right role". The documents don't acknowledge the possibility that those people may say "no". Nor do the documents say what the criteria are for such identification.

Do the authors of the framework assume that there'll be an increase in the general quality of coaches? If they reduce coaching to a clerical exercise, they'll find that those most capable of coaching archers will drop out in frustration, leaving behind those who merely have a head for paperwork, and those who like to go to courses and conferences but aren't actually much good at coaching people.

The documents talk about coach payment. They make quite a big thing of this, which suggests that this is what the authors think will draw more people into coaching. How will such payment square with the GNAS insurance cover? Will the GNAS insurance policy change to cover coaches when they're receiving payment for archery activities, or will coaches still be required to have their own public liability insurance for paid activities? Has the effect on the income of clubs, many of whom rely on fees from coaching activities, been considered?

The prospect of payment for coaching may not, in reality, attract many people into coaching. People in permanent employment, whose taxes are handled by a PAYE scheme, generally won't find such payments worthwhile given the way that they'll complicate the tax situation. And peoples' contracts of employment may prevent them from taking such paid coaching work. The framework's authors should take a good look at what CURRENTLY draws people into coaching and build on that - or at least not kill it.

The Archer Development Model is described thus: "Provides overview of all archers & their needs, goals, and development options. System tool to help archers achieve their goals in archery. Archer data is used to populate the model to indicate the demand for coaching." Now THIS is a pure pipe dream. Who would gather this data? What makes the authors think that "all" archers will be willing to provide such data, or consent to others providing such data about them? How will the data be gathered, and how does this model square with the Data Protection Act? Short of a Korea-style nationalisation and regimentation of the sport, this cannot be achieved.

Several regional, county and national bodies have signed up to the "vision" of this framework without seeing any details of how this Vision will be implemented. In my opinion they are not serving their clubs, coaches and archers well by doing this. There's no point in signing us up to a Vision that can't be realised, or that could drive coaches out of the sport.

I respectfully suggest that those behind the proposed coaching framework look in detail at how realistic their Vision is before going any further.


Yours,
Tim Mason
Secretary, Phoenix Bowmen, Halifax

Since I sent that in early December, I've learned a few more things.

The UK Coaching Framework assumes that all sports follow the same age profile: people start when they're kids, get competitive in their teens, compete at an Elite level between the ages of 16 and 30, then wind down after 30, with few or no competitors over the age of 35. Then they retire from playing and move into coaching and volunteer work.
Now how well does that fit archery, would you say? And yet, our governing body is pretending that we fit this model in order to obtain grant funding.

1st4sport has been chosen as the awarding body for UKCC Level 1, as mentioned on page 28 of the current Archery UK. Dr Holt lacks the space to mention that we will thus lose control of when Level 1 courses are run, where they're run and how much they will cost.

Anyway, congratulations to anyone who's read this far and apologies for hogging so many bytes. But this stuff matters, and the approach being taken simply will not work.