UK Coaching Framework - Page 3

napolienne · 11-05-09, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TJ Mason

I believe so, yes. They're certainly not Government funded.

Sorry TJ, I think you're way out on that one

Funding News

TJ Mason · 12-05-09, 12:24 AM

Thanks for the correction! That's interesting - they've found a way of getting Government funding without stuffing up their coaching. Why can't we?

JohnR · 12-05-09, 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TJ Mason

Thanks for the correction! That's interesting - they've found a way of getting Government funding without stuffing up their coaching. Why can't we?

In what way are we 'stuffing up our coaching'? In what way are British Cycling not? From the coaching pages on the British Cycling website it all seems remarkably similar to where Ollie Holt is trying to take AGB. They're a bit further ahead - going for UKCC acreditation on new L3 courses.

John

TJ Mason · 12-05-09, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnR

In what way are we 'stuffing up our coaching'?

You'll find my views on that in the first post, and the views of many others in subsequent posts.

napolienne · 12-05-09, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnR

In what way are we 'stuffing up our coaching'? In what way are British Cycling not? From the coaching pages on the British Cycling website it all seems remarkably similar to where Ollie Holt is trying to take AGB. They're a bit further ahead - going for UKCC acreditation on new L3 courses.

John

Agree, we're a few years further back in the process, but headed for the same place. Representitives from UK cycling have spoken at our development conference and I *think* met with the coaching development people too.

not dead yet · 12-05-09, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnR

In what way are we 'stuffing up our coaching'? In what way are British Cycling not? From the coaching pages on the British Cycling website it all seems remarkably similar to where Ollie Holt is trying to take AGB. They're a bit further ahead - going for UKCC acreditation on new L3 courses.

John

yeah archery just like riding a bike...

mk1 · 12-05-09, 10:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by not dead yet

yeah archery just like riding a bike...

Yup - once you've mastered the art - you never forget

TJ Mason · 21-06-09, 10:58 PM

Archery UK Summer 2009 edition, page 61. Director of Operations' Report to the Board, item 31:

Quote:

Operations were asked by Ollie Holt to sign off the Archer Development Model that he has produced. Operations decided that there was not enough information in order for us to sign it off even as a first stage. Chairman of Coaching was tasked with coming back to the next Operations meeting with more meat to the Model.

Quite telling, and it shows how premature so many regions and counties were in signing up to the Framework.

Loomer · 21-06-09, 11:33 PM

Well, given that every presentation I've seen on it so far has only had some vague words attached about the models (and the same vague words despite the 9 months between them), I'm not surprised by operations' reaction. Hopefully Tim Swane will take this and cause a bit of movement on the development of more words.

not dead yet · 24-06-09, 12:48 AM

archery uK Summer 2009 edition, page 61. Director of Operations' Report to the Board, item 31:

Quote:
Operations were asked by Ollie Holt to sign off the Archer Development Model that he has produced. Operations decided that there was not enough information in order for us to sign it off even as a first stage. Chairman of Coaching was tasked with coming back to the next Operations meeting with more meat to the Model.

Quite telling, and it shows how premature so many regions and counties were in signing up to the Framework.

it also show ollie holt doesn't know what he's doin........again

Whitehart · 24-06-09, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TJ Mason

Quite telling, and it shows how premature so many regions and counties were in signing up to the Framework.

Interesting, the meeting I attended was only looking for County approval of the idea when asked to sign up and initially the only commitment the county was undertaking was to help provide information and ideas so that the framework of coaching ideas could be discussed and put together, I don't believe I fell a sleep and missed anything. Given the times scales from then to now I would have been surprised if anything was concluded and everything was still in the ideas floating around stage.

TJ Mason · 24-06-09, 10:06 AM

At the County meeting I attended, it seemed we were being asked to sign up to a lot more than just the idea. We (Yorkshire) stated that we would sign up to the PRINCIPLES, but would not sign up to the details until we saw a lot more of them. This has NOT been treated as sign-up by Dr Holt; so evidently, sign-up is about more than just the idea.

Ollie seems to be treating sign-up as giving broad approval of what's being done and how it's being done, judging by his page in Archery UK.

I certainly don't have a problem with the IDEA of the UK Coaching Framework. I've little confidence in the current coach education system, and archer development is currently very hit-and-miss. But what's been proposed has little or no connection to present realities, doesn't address certain key problems in coach development, puts too much emphasis on grade, and shows signs of becoming a great missed opportunity.

Cimbian · 25-06-09, 10:46 AM

Firstly, I am all in favour of coach development and a recognised standard across the role.

Some of the problems, as I see them, are:

1. too many people in coaching think they have learned it all and are unwilling to listen to new ideas. Sort of "I've been prancing around in dark green longer than you so s0d off and leave me alone".

2. too many people in archery think that shooting and coaching are the same thing... if one shoots well then they, or others, believe they can also coach... Moo-Mop has a refreshing personal take on this. One doesn't need to have had open-heart surgery to qualify as a heart surgeon.

3. too many powerpoint slides are bandied around that are void of content and plan. The author/presenter may understand it but as a vehicle it fails to deliver which, IMHO, makes it 'appear' self-serving nonesense.

4. the lure of money and gong-chasing has skewed perspective.

I'm archer development officer in our guild and I , the CCO and the coach development officer, as a minimum, want to see our coaches develop but we also have to factor-in the personalities and outside commitments of the coaches... the framework as so far understood doesn't seem to make sufficient provision for this.

Sadly I think we will get something pressed upon us that will not fit the vast majority of coaches or archers for the sake of accreditation despite the attempts at 'consultation'.

It may be a a group of vollunteers doing their best for the sport but with a top-heavy organisation such as GNAS there should be full-time staff that can work on this to produce a meaningful and broad structure that is actually understandable by those that it affects.

Whitehart · 25-06-09, 11:27 AM

My take on the coaching framework is that somebody has woken up realised that there is a load of good being done out there but nobody knows what anyone is doing or the skills they have. Probably a question on a sport UK grant application - GNAS certainly does not, it was admitted at the meeting that they did not record/process the efforts of coaches - my take on this - never read the renewal paperwork to really understand what is going on.

The biggest hurdle is that coaches are volunteers that give time freely, but this seems to be forgotten and they are treated like employees of a company.

In the end its a case of what the hell, is all this hassle needed and just get on with what has worked to date or give up and just shoot. Because there is little benefit in doing otherwise as next month there will be another initiative to keep people in paid employment at Sport UK.

Remember the coaching framework will not be complete until 2016 and 2012 before anything I guess of substance is produced.

Loomer · 25-06-09, 01:09 PM

Cimbian, you make a lot of good points in your post.

1) Hopefully the requirements for CPD will sort these out.

2) Too true. Most archers know how they think they shoot, but this doesn't mean that they can teach another to do it, or that the way they shoot will work for others.

3) Coaching framework presentations that I've seen have been long on words and pictures, but short on substance.

If you are part of the County Coaching structure, won't you be getting involvement in the process (assuming you have 'signed up'), and that should mean it won't be forced on you?

12-05-09, 12:24 AM	#32 (permalink)
TJ Mason Off on one Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Halifax, UK Posts: 3,082 Tournaments Joined: 0 Tournaments Won: 0 Downloads: 76 Uploads: 17 Blog Entries: 65	Thanks for the correction! That's interesting - they've found a way of getting Government funding without stuffing up their coaching. Why can't we? __________________ A whim of iron Club: Phoenix Bowmen, Halifax, UK, County: Yorkshire

24-06-09, 10:06 AM	#42 (permalink)
TJ Mason Off on one Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Halifax, UK Posts: 3,082 Tournaments Joined: 0 Tournaments Won: 0 Downloads: 76 Uploads: 17 Blog Entries: 65	At the County meeting I attended, it seemed we were being asked to sign up to a lot more than just the idea. We (Yorkshire) stated that we would sign up to the PRINCIPLES, but would not sign up to the details until we saw a lot more of them. This has NOT been treated as sign-up by Dr Holt; so evidently, sign-up is about more than just the idea. Ollie seems to be treating sign-up as giving broad approval of what's being done and how it's being done, judging by his page in Archery UK. I certainly don't have a problem with the IDEA of the UK Coaching Framework. I've little confidence in the current coach education system, and archer development is currently very hit-and-miss. But what's been proposed has little or no connection to present realities, doesn't address certain key problems in coach development, puts too much emphasis on grade, and shows signs of becoming a great missed opportunity. __________________ A whim of iron Club: Phoenix Bowmen, Halifax, UK, County: Yorkshire

25-06-09, 10:46 AM	#43 (permalink)
Cimbian In the Gold Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Dahn Saaf Posts: 814 Tournaments Joined: 0 Tournaments Won: 0 Downloads: 32 Uploads: 1	Firstly, I am all in favour of coach development and a recognised standard across the role. Some of the problems, as I see them, are: 1. too many people in coaching think they have learned it all and are unwilling to listen to new ideas. Sort of "I've been prancing around in dark green longer than you so s0d off and leave me alone". 2. too many people in archery think that shooting and coaching are the same thing... if one shoots well then they, or others, believe they can also coach... Moo-Mop has a refreshing personal take on this. One doesn't need to have had open-heart surgery to qualify as a heart surgeon. 3. too many powerpoint slides are bandied around that are void of content and plan. The author/presenter may understand it but as a vehicle it fails to deliver which, IMHO, makes it 'appear' self-serving nonesense. 4. the lure of money and gong-chasing has skewed perspective. I'm archer development officer in our guild and I , the CCO and the coach development officer, as a minimum, want to see our coaches develop but we also have to factor-in the personalities and outside commitments of the coaches... the framework as so far understood doesn't seem to make sufficient provision for this. Sadly I think we will get something pressed upon us that will not fit the vast majority of coaches or archers for the sake of accreditation despite the attempts at 'consultation'. It may be a a group of vollunteers doing their best for the sport but with a top-heavy organisation such as GNAS there should be full-time staff that can work on this to produce a meaningful and broad structure that is actually understandable by those that it affects. __________________ English may be a strange language but I can assure you that an open mind and an empty head are not the same thing!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Coaching - Would/Have you paid for Coaching?	Watch_Man	Archery Polls	27	27-01-10 10:57 PM
coaching framework canadian style cica 2002	not dead yet	Methodology, Tuning, Coaching etc.	4	03-09-08 01:44 PM
Coaching - Where do you get your main coaching and mentoring?	Watch_Man	Archery Polls	33	11-11-07 05:42 PM
Coaching	jammed05	Recurve Bow: Discussion/Q&A	0	03-06-06 11:02 PM
Coaching	StinkyPete	Archery Polls	19	27-07-05 07:59 PM

21-06-09, 11:33 PM	#39 (permalink)
Loomer In the Blue Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Yorkshire Posts: 143 Tournaments Joined: 1 Tournaments Won: 0 Downloads: 3 Uploads: 0	Well, given that every presentation I've seen on it so far has only had some vague words attached about the models (and the same vague words despite the 9 months between them), I'm not surprised by operations' reaction. Hopefully Tim Swane will take this and cause a bit of movement on the development of more words.

24-06-09, 12:48 AM	#40 (permalink)
not dead yet It's an X Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: north wales Posts: 3,927 Tournaments Joined: 0 Tournaments Won: 0 Downloads: 152 Uploads: 0 Blog Entries: 4	archery uK Summer 2009 edition, page 61. Director of Operations' Report to the Board, item 31: Quote: Operations were asked by Ollie Holt to sign off the Archer Development Model that he has produced. Operations decided that there was not enough information in order for us to sign it off even as a first stage. Chairman of Coaching was tasked with coming back to the next Operations meeting with more meat to the Model. Quite telling, and it shows how premature so many regions and counties were in signing up to the Framework. it also show ollie holt doesn't know what he's doin........again

25-06-09, 11:27 AM	#44 (permalink)
Whitehart It's an X Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Essex Posts: 2,956 Tournaments Joined: 0 Tournaments Won: 0 Downloads: 34 Uploads: 0	My take on the coaching framework is that somebody has woken up realised that there is a load of good being done out there but nobody knows what anyone is doing or the skills they have. Probably a question on a sport UK grant application - GNAS certainly does not, it was admitted at the meeting that they did not record/process the efforts of coaches - my take on this - never read the renewal paperwork to really understand what is going on. The biggest hurdle is that coaches are volunteers that give time freely, but this seems to be forgotten and they are treated like employees of a company. In the end its a case of what the hell, is all this hassle needed and just get on with what has worked to date or give up and just shoot. Because there is little benefit in doing otherwise as next month there will be another initiative to keep people in paid employment at Sport UK. Remember the coaching framework will not be complete until 2016 and 2012 before anything I guess of substance is produced.

25-06-09, 01:09 PM	#45 (permalink)
Loomer In the Blue Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Yorkshire Posts: 143 Tournaments Joined: 1 Tournaments Won: 0 Downloads: 3 Uploads: 0	Cimbian, you make a lot of good points in your post. 1) Hopefully the requirements for CPD will sort these out. 2) Too true. Most archers know how they think they shoot, but this doesn't mean that they can teach another to do it, or that the way they shoot will work for others. 3) Coaching framework presentations that I've seen have been long on words and pictures, but short on substance. If you are part of the County Coaching structure, won't you be getting involvement in the process (assuming you have 'signed up'), and that should mean it won't be forced on you?