Huge improvement in GNAS coaching

[BeardedBowman]

I do hope no-one in coaching is calling the Level 1 course an 'Instructors Course' as the last such course was held in 1982, and the old Instructor grade no longer exists, any Instructors having upgraded to Level 1 ages ago...

[grimsby archer]

Originally Posted by BeardedBowman

I do hope no-one in coaching is calling the Level 1 course an 'Instructors Course' as the last such course was held in 1982, and the old Instructor grade no longer exists, any Instructors having upgraded to Level 1 ages ago...

Perhaps "Level1 Coach" has something that "Instructor" didnt: implied potential

[Robin the Hood]

Originally Posted by BeardedBowman

I do hope no-one in coaching is calling the Level 1 course an 'Instructors Course' as the last such course was held in 1982, and the old Instructor grade no longer exists, any Instructors having upgraded to Level 1 ages ago...

But the two are the same, except 'Instructor' gives the honest meaning of the Badge....

Paul...

[English Bowman]

Originally Posted by BeardedBowman

I do hope no-one in coaching is calling the Level 1 course an 'Instructors Course' as the last such course was held in 1982, and the old Instructor grade no longer exists, any Instructors having upgraded to Level 1 ages ago...

I think that the Instructor grade was re-introduced as Assistant Coach, which was then replaced by Level 1.

The Instructors that I knew had to upgrade to Coach long before Level 1 was thought of. Coach is far closer to Level 2 than Level 1.

I understand the reasoning for the naming level 1 to 4, but I think that it would be far better to have more descriptive naming such as
Instructor - Club Coach - County Coach - Senior Coach or similar. I do not think of a level 1 coach as a coach, they are an instructor, and there is nothing wrong with that, without good instructors beginners won't get set on the right path. I think that the current naming is too open to confusion, which is better 1 or 4? Is one the "best" or 4 the "highest"? If you've never been exposed to the NCF coaching structure before then you wouldn't know.

Daniel

[BeardedBowman]

'Level 1 Coach' and 'Instructor' are most definitely NOT the same thing at all, and I know that from personally experience having first qualified as an Instructor in 1975 and going to County Coach in 2004 after a break from archery.

Archery has moved on an enourmous amount in the years since the 70's and 80's, and so has the level of knowledge required to teach Beginners effectively and safely.

Instructors were taught nothing about basic Human Anatomy and how it applies to archery, and they were also not taught about warming up the body to do archery without sustaining injuries, just 2 mention 2 areas that spring to mind.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by BeardedBowman

'Level 1 Coach' and 'Instructor' are most definitely NOT the same thing at all, and I know that from personally experience having first qualified as an Instructor in 1975 and going to County Coach in 2004 after a break from archery.

Archery has moved on an enourmous amount in the years since the 70's and 80's, and so has the level of knowledge required to teach Beginners effectively and safely.

Instructors were taught nothing about basic Human Anatomy and how it applies to archery, and they were also not taught about warming up the body to do archery without sustaining injuries, just 2 mention 2 areas that spring to mind.

But that just means that an instructor course now would have a different syllabus to an instructor course in 1970. No surprise there! But the role remains the same.

John

[Meddler]

The UK Coaching Certificate has been set up by the government/sportscoachUK in such a way as to provide a level playing field across all sports. A minimum standard has been laid down for each of the UKCC Levels. The idea being that if a person has a Level 1 in one sport, then they should be able to go to another sport, and go through their Level 1, but only having to do the sport specific modules, as there are core modules (anatomy, sports science etc...). Whether this will take place is moot.

1 is the starting level, and as stated before, level 1s will work under the supervision of a more experienced Coach.

Believe me when I say that the initial setting of the standards for all Levels of Coaching within GNAS was difficult. There is a thread on here somewhere which states the level each grade of Coach is operating at. How much do we expect a Level 1 Coach to know compared to a Level 2. You have to think about the level of expertise required to bring a beginner safely into the sport.

If you want to see how GNAS Level 1 compares to other sports, go on a level 1 for Badminton, Football, Rugby or even American Football...

Level 1 Coaches are not Olympic Class Coaches - they are just starting out on a journey. Even Level 2 Coaches aren't Olympic level. But Levels 1 & 2 get taught a lot over their course time.

Just passing an assessment means they were of an acceptable standard on the day. It does not imbue them with a thoughtful personality or god-like infallibility.

As to the imputation the Assessors are scared to mark a candidate as "Not yet competent" because of the money involved... utter nonsense. The pass is predicated on all of the boxes being ticked, which shows that they were performing to the level expected. (Oh and go ask a dry ski slope instructor how much it costs to gain their qualification)

And as I have said before, the courses are reviewed with regard to fitness for purpose on a two yearly basis. If changes need to be made, then they are.

[John (OSF)]

Not rising to that one either

[Robin the Hood]

Originally Posted by Meddler

The UK Coaching Certificate has been set up by the government/sportscoachUK in such a way as to provide a level playing field across all sports.

What the hell has 'Shooting a Bow', 'Kicking a Ball' and and 'Ski-ing down a mountain' have in common...
No wonder this topic will outlast us all....
I see also the Goverment get a mention, so it's Political too....

Paul....

[Cimbian]

I think the key lies in two areas here:

1. Level 1 replaced ASSISTANT coach, not national coach
2. It is the start of a journey of progression that anyone that wants to graft can pursue... and IMHO it does take graft.

Take the 90 quid out of the equation as that is a ridiculous slur on the integrity of the assessors and not worthy of any coach and you are down to somebody that has 'probably' attended all the sessions and attained a satisfactory level of ASSISTANT on the day.

I know of Level 1 coaches that have a great deal of knowledge and experience... I know of county coaches that do not.

The example given was of one person that got through an assessment but is likely to fail on renewal and is the bad apple that all groups will suffer.

The other things to consider is that if this individual is ineffective then the coach he/she is ASSISTING should pick up on this and if he/she is dangerous then should be reported to the CCO.

If we didn't have a structure then it would be down to the club know-all/button-twiddler to develop our sport and that, for me, is an horrendous thought.