Coach Education as I thought it would be!

On May 21st 2002 I attended the first coaching framework meeting with the great and good of the time Dick Caborn MP, Sue Campbell John Stevens (SCUK CEO), whoever was head of Sport England at the time and all the major sport CEOs of the time were present. I remember the date as it was the day I resigned from CEO at England Basketball.

I remember the discussions well – Dick Caborn extolling the virtues of Coaching and how it should be a profession along with a recognition of the inconsistency of coach education, lack of value for coaches and also how we didn’t know how many coaches were out their coaching and in what environment.

What a long we have come – a national coaching survey identifying over 1 million coaches, the 4x4 matrix, Community coach programme (come and gone) more professional coaches in a range of environments and the UK Coaching Certificate. Undoubtedly the size of the workforce surprised many not least the County sports organisations who were proud of having 500 coaches on a database where it should be more like 15,000. I also think these stats played a part in convincing government that sport has a high value and many voters!

However I would like to reflect on what I thought was going to happen with the UK Coaching Certificate. What I thought was going to happen was the development of the core competences of coaching that would form the Coaching certificate with Sport specific or environment specific “bolt-ons” to give the coach their licence to coach. But no we had the good old British compromise and poor management of the people leading it at the time. Rightly or wrongly NGBs had an opportunity, and they took it, the control the coaching certificate leading to the non-recognition of prior learning, experience or qualification.

Sports Coach UK missed the opportunity at the time to strengthen their position as THE body responsible for licensing coaches and recording their coach competences. Yes NGBs do a great job in delivering coach education and the quality of coaching in the UK will develop consequently over time. However my understanding is that most coaches in the “profession” are coaches in more than one sport and we now have reached the crackers position where Lecturers are asking students to achieve 10+ level one qualifications before being accepted on a PGCE course! So they do the same core units over ten times and pay for it. I only like paying for something twice if it new and fresh – although I have just renewed my Villa season ticket! – so why are they paying for the same thing over again on top of in some cases a degree in coaching?

So what should be the answer? Well I think strongly that we should recognise prior learning and achievement – this not only means prior accreditation with qualification at level 2 and above but also playing experience. The technical knowledge gained through playing at the highest level should not be underestimated however the matching with coaching skills should still be assessed in the same way that anyone is assessed. In the same way an experienced coach needs the technical skills to apply the coaching skills to – again assessed to the same standards.

We have recently accredited to deliver the Principles of Coaching http://bit.ly/r8E0nh at three levels – this will mean that fourteen year olds will gain the knowledge and accreditation of the core unit for coaching and marry these with the technical skills and we have a bank of young people who have applied theory into practice before they can gain a UKCC qualification. What an opportunity for the development of coaching.

What does this mean for the structure of coach education – well it means flexibility of the structure of courses and maybe assessment days assessing a range of learners who have come through different paths to be assessed – this will be interesting to see how governing bodies react. Many I sense will plough along the must do the full course way however look at education now and the number of students undertaking GCSE exams at year 9 and 10 and you see a flexible approach that recognises different ways to maximise learning and accreditation.

It will also address one of the key complaints about UKCC – the cost. The rise is price was inevitable as an awarding body and all the quality control came in rather than a governing body giving a certificate away. However modified course with sound assessment against the same criteria will reduce time and therefore cost to the learner.

An exciting time ahead and one that the middle bank of sports if they embrace it will see a growth in the coaching workforce. Would welcome thoughts...

Governance

Much is said in the world of sport of the need for "sound governance" - well what does that mean? We are currently reviewing a County Sport Partnership http://bit.ly/pmfTDO and have recently assisted two governing bodies http://bit.ly/njDiVJ in developing elements of their "governance". So practical experience and being able to identify strengths and weaknesses is important however the experience of “flying” the governance plane is an undoubted benefit.

My time at England Basketball gave me a vast knowledge and very practical and at some time stressful experience of how board of directors all signed up to a direction can be changed by one or two people who want to see "change" or who are seduced by the power of being a board member. Many good “doers” do not make good board members.

This is still the case with elected members or those from a body of the sport or a particular organisation not seeing the importance of collective working and that they should take the decisions based on the best interests of the organisation rather than the body they represent.

The answer is easy to explain but difficult to implement! Identify the skills and competences needed and within that the “type” of person you need. Whether election or appointment make sure that the people leading the organisation can understand that boards are about policy setting and strategic overview not implementation. One of my first consultancy contracts was to develop the self assurance framework http://bit.ly/qaxDCn which is now online and a very useful tool to measure with a sound framework for governance.

Some warning signs are obvious to me when looking at organisations which give a feel for poor governance –
• No skills or competence matrix/assessment
• Only elected members appointed
• Board papers circulated late or on the day
• Hefty operationally based agendas looking back not forward
• Sub-committees not meeting
• A large range of action from previous meetings not completed
• No declaration of interest process and members gaining “benefit” from being on the board
• “Red-letter day” board meetings
• No financial reserves or investment policies
• Members feel they have to “bring things to the board” rather than resolve prior to the meeting
• Or conversely dint raise things as they feel they will not be adequately discussed
• To name but a few..

I have recently been appointed to two voluntary roles in two sports both of whom I believe have sound governance and make sure that the board deals with the policy matters and staff and volunteers in collaboration deliver of the ground. I have been very impressed with Baseball-Softball Board governance since being on their board and not least the quality of delivery of a small, dedicated and expert staff team. The same can be said for West Midlands Swimming which I am delighted to have been appointed as chair.

Numerous examples exist of board of directors that have become dysfunctional or have been unduly influenced by conflicts of interest. I’ve lived it!! However those governing bodies and county boards who have ensured that all directors have their “noses all pointing in the same direction”, as Clive Woodward describes it, and have concentrated on the growth of the sport. One great example is Scottish Swimming, supported by the excellent Sportscotland Modern Sport Programme and led by Paul Bush, now with event Scotland. Paul some ten years ago moved to a competence based board that focused on the development of the sport and as such less in-fighting and a concentration on results. The subsequent over-performance at Commonwealth games proved the clear direction given by the board to allow the staff to lead implementation.

When I reviewed the governance some three years ago http://bit.ly/qhkMmZ the board were still focused and my review concentrated more on the committee functions which needed change. The quality of the staff had led to the committees being informed of what had happened and not discussing how to do things. Therefore the sport reduced its committee structure making the sport more able to react to the changing times.

Governance and leadership is critical to the effective running and development of organisations and should not be under-valued or overlooked. I am sure many organisations in or out of sport still fall into the same traps but the tools and people are there to help!