UK Coaching Framework

[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.

[napolienne]

Hi TJ. I have been involved in the early stages of the Framework stuff so I think I should comment.

The main issue is a chicken and egg one. The small group of volunteers working on this project cannot and should not design a fully worked up framework on their own. They need help from regions, counties and clubs - in the form of information (hence the audit process) and participation (working groups, consultations). But it seems that some regions/counties are not willing to commit to helping until there is a fully worked up framework. You see the problem.

No-one is pretending that the outline doc from SCUK matches our sport perfectly. It does have some good ideas. But we have to take the bare bones of the Framework and turn it into something that will advance our sport. There will be no shoehorning of the sport into categories that simply don't fit.

You ask a lot of good questions, and I will be honest, many of them cannot be answered yet. Nor should they be - the answers define the framework and the entire sport should have a part in that.

I am sure that there will be much discussion of this at the development conference.

Finally, on a personal note, I just want to emphasise that the people working on the various framework implementation groups are not shadowy figures, we do not have hidden agendas. We are coaches, coach managers, and above all archers - just like you. We love this sport, we give up our time to do something that we believe will help it. Just like you. Please remember that

[Flying Whale]

I rather liked this line..."Similarly, we can't rely on having retired players working in coaching - when people retire from shooting, they nearly always leave the sport entirely."

Frnakly most people when they "retire" from shooting don't leave the sport.....they die. Archery is great in that (as you point out later, we don't fit the usual age demographic) people can continue participating until their 70's, or 80's quite effectively.

I will watch with interest how this progresses.

Having started about 4 years back (already in to my 40's), I think at some point I would like to contribute to the coaching side. I need to get some more experience first. I hope that come the time, I will be able to afford to coach.

[andrew.paterson]

If you want people to volunteer you need to make sure that red tape and silly rules do not get in the way (that isn't a dig at GNAS, as I have not read the rules on coaching)

If it is going to cost people what is perceived a lot of time or money being used up on satisfying process and procedures, and not actually getting something done then the volunteer is just going to walk away.

Everyone understands that some controls need to be put into place, but sometimes these controls can go too far, and people lose sight of the original objectives.

Time is very limited for everyone, there is a world outside of Archery. A lot of volunteers give up activities not because they fall out of favour with it, but their family members. Family members will say 'for goodness sakes you are doing this for no money, and look at the workload you are under!'. If a system is perceived from the outside as too overbearing then this is where the volunteer process will fall down.

Don't forget the easier you make it to vounteer the more volunteers you will attract. This is true of any activity.

[Furface]

Originally Posted by napolienne

.... But it seems that some regions/counties are not willing to commit to helping until there is a fully worked up framework. ...

[Writing as the NCAS Chairman] Northern Counties is very cautious about signing up to the project, not because of the lack of a framework - as Nat says that would be foolish - but because of a lack of an actual project, no plans, no structure, no criteria for success, nothing other than a vague hope to work towards the framework. And yet decisions have been made that seem palpably wrong - surrendering control of Level 1 training to an outside agency that other sports, who had signed up to it, are desperately trying to leave because of the lack of control. There are major concerns being expressed by very experienced people, and they are being sidelined.

[napolienne]

Originally Posted by Furface

[Writing as the NCAS Chairman] Northern Counties is very cautious about signing up to the project, not because of the lack of a framework - as Nat says that would be foolish - but because of a lack of an actual project, no plans, no structure, no criteria for success, nothing other than a vague hope to work towards the framework.

All fair points, that I agree the group need to work on. I agree that the whole thing will go a lot smoother with clearly defined plans for delivery and assessment.

Originally Posted by Furface

And yet decisions have been made that seem palpably wrong - surrendering control of Level 1 training to an outside agency that other sports, who had signed up to it, are desperately trying to leave because of the lack of control..

Can't really comment on the UKCC stuff, haven't had any involvement.

Originally Posted by Furface

There are major concerns being expressed by very experienced people, and they are being sidelined.

Given the amount of time the FE group spent on the subject at our meeting the other weekend, I cannot agree with this. As I see it it is important that these concerns are properly addressed - that means a proper answer, not five minutes and the back of an envelope.

All the best
Nat

[moo-mop]

Originally Posted by TJ Mason

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.

I think this is the most interesting bit of your post and I agree. This seems exactly how the top level coaching already operates - with good coaches focusing on juniors to get them into national squad coaching to find the odd one to develop into an international level archer. It is very very understandable. It is the way to create Elite performers.

It is also the reason I am choosing to start to learn how to coach, because I see a gap in provision for intermediate level adults and I may want to learn enough to help in this gap.
I personally do feel, though, that I could not do individual coaching properly and shoot, with a full time job, and I think that does need to be considered.

[Furface]

There is definitely a circle that needs squaring here. To grow - no, simply to stay where we are - we need to provide more coaching at all levels, and we need to ensure that the coaching is of sufficient quality. Given the current expectations from society in general, the growing complexity of the sporting environment, and, yes, the economic situation, this is an almost impossible challenge. So we need visionaries who can find ways to make coaching archery into a viable part of one's "job portfolio". This should not necessarily be full time, but, given all the demands, it cannot continue to be purely ad hoc and voluntary as at present. But visionaries need grounding and balancing; if the Vision is for an army of full-time professional coaches, for instance, then there has to be a practical programme for introducing them into the job market. I do not envy those who have this task.

[moo-mop]

Originally Posted by Furface

and voluntary as at present.

I would also just like to say how much I learnt from a good coach in just three hours - it made an exponential difference. For an archer that is say good county level (I was already shooting well over 1200) coaching that really increases performance may not take as long as many think, and thus can still be provided by volunteers.

[Robin the Hood]

Originally Posted by Furface

There is definitely a circle that needs squaring here. To grow - no, simply to stay where we are - we need to provide more coaching at all levels, and we need to ensure that the coaching is of sufficient quality.

I think you've hit it on the head. I am totally baffled with the imformation I have read that NDY showed me. The emphasis seems to be purely on the Coach 1 phase, which has and always will be the section for beginners. I know this plays a part in the promotion of our sport, but we seem to need more attention paying to the rest of the classes. Other threads have made it clear that the majority of newcomers who enter archery come to a dead end when the lack of higher grade coaches are not to be found.
Therefore I do feel it is paramount that a system is needed that takes the whole of archery coaching from beginners to international into account...

Paul...

[napolienne]

Originally Posted by Robin the Hood

... I do feel it is paramount that a system is needed that takes the whole of archery coaching from beginners to international into account...

Paul...

Amen - that's precisely the idea.

[moo-mop]

Originally Posted by Robin the Hood

Therefore I do feel it is paramount that a system is needed that takes the whole of archery coaching from beginners to international into account...

I do also feel a lot of archers do not realise how much effort they must put in, even at just beyond beginner, if they are to get anything out of coaching and put too much onto stuff coming down from a miraculous external coaching system.

If we again think about:

Provides overview of all archers & their needs, goals, and development options.

How many archers actually have proper written records on how much they shoot, what they are working on and their findings etc. Also a lot of archers sadly bemoan the lack of coaching but think they want to go far further than they actually do. You often hear it said, quite seriously, on the shooting line "oh if only I could spend all day shooting" but so many fail to imagine how repetitive that job would be. Also see how many archers list their goals in terms of their classification, by definition set externally.

The trouble with realistic goals as described in the first post is not limited to the coaching side of archery development, but if coaching is judged by archers' supposed goals then that is tricky.

[Fan Hir]

A good caoching framework is essential to the development of any sport and its participants. However, archery fails to seperate instruction from coaching. Two very different disciplines with different skill requirements. Level 1 coaches are effectively instructors who teach beginners how to shoot a bow safely. Coaches are involved in skill development and can be of benefit to archers of all standards.
I was previously heavily involved in sailing, a spectacularyly successful GB olympic sport. The RYA set up differentiates between instructors and racing coaches. Instructors teach the basics of boat control and lead trainees through the various certificate schemes but the coaches work on improving performance and results. In view of the success of our sailing teams it surely makes sense for archery to look at the RYA set up, take what relevant good points it can and apply them to our sport. In particular I think the use of experienced archers as coaches following a short training course is a very good use of resources. I think, for instance that anyone of bowman standard or above would be able to help 1st, 2nd and 3rd class archers improve, and probably already do so on an informal basis. By allowing experienced archers to quickly and easily obtain a, lets call it 'club shooting coach' qualification, a strong tier of intermediate coaches could be created across the country.
Just a thought, and I do not claim it as an original idea, but if there are good ideas out there lets use them.
FH

[spavo]

I must say I've been to a meeting where the framework was delivered and then had a follow up call about the meeting form someone at sports UK.

I found the meeting to be very good. Some of the graphics and the wordy part not as good but the spoken word around it excellent. As a framework at this moment in time I could see it working and hope it does work.

[Trunkles]

I looked at the charts and was baffled. I think you need the words to go with it. If the NCAS coaching conference gets off the ground this year and I can attend then hopefully we might have a presentation on it.