Preferencial Target Selection

[geoffretired]

Having a structure is a good idea. Coaches can work their way through from L1 onwards. That is fine for those who know very little at the start. Some go for a coaching qualification after many years of experience, and start at L1 as if they are a beginner. Soul destroying.
Another aspect of the levels system is that going up a level brings administrative duties which may not be the way some individuals want to go.

 

[Munsterman]

I just did the level 1 course and my NSPCC safeguarding online course was ?20 and it does generate the required certificate at the end. There's even a code for AGB that gets you ten percent off (they just didn't tell me until day one of the course though and I'd already done it by then).

Course was a total waste of time though. No allowance for experience and any half competent bowman or MB-level archer will learn naff all and could pass the laughable 'assessment' without ever doing the rest of the course. Ask any questions about actual coaching and the answer is always 'that's more for the level 2 course'.
May as well just add ?250 to the L2 price so they don't lose any cash and just let anyone who knows their archery #### from their elbow start straight at L2. Pointless.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No doubt often the case but I have witnessed several experienced archers including a former international archer get referred at L1. Sometimes experienced archers get over confident and complacent.

 

[Corax67]

Might it not also be a case that not everyone is cut out to be a coach, irrespective of how good an archer they are ?

Already I have witnessed archers who are at MB, GMB & county level but lack any shred of interpersonal skills which would allow them to communicate their experience & knowledge to another experienced archer, let alone a complete beginner.

The skills required to be an effective communicator / facilitator / coach / instructor take years to develop & hone - not something that a 4 day course can install in all honesty.


Also, with regard to an earlier comment questioning "who decides if a person is qualified", I know at our club the 5 coaches who do all the beginners courses & one-to-one work haven't attended the new AGB Level 1 course but have years if not decades of experience combined with (a natural or learned) ability to disseminate this knowledge - they may well have attended some form of structured course prior to the current system but I don't know if that is the case.

Does this make them any less a coach than someone who has never shot yet has done the current course ?

What does a successful club level coach look like ? Should they be quantified by numbers such as percentage of archers who stay in a club after the beginners course or how many archers from a given cohort have reached 1st class within a specified time frame? By how many MB archers have passed through their hands or archers went on to shoot for their county ?

Can more ethereal measures be applied such as the 'contentment' of a clubs members with their volunteer coaches ? Could it be as simple as seeing the joy of one archer shooting a PB after half an hour of targeted training with the same coaches ?




Karl

 

[geoffretired]

Nice post, Karl.
Success in archery is no proof that coaching will be done with equal success.
If there is a genuine interest in coaches, and improving the coaching at any level, it isn't too difficult to find out where the individual is before the course starts.
If talent scouts can find future footballers by visiting schools and local football events...... the same can be done for coaching.
What do new members of this forum often do, when they have just had an archery have a go session on holiday? They get on here and ask about clubs where they live. Usually they want to know what the clubs are like. They visit the clubs, find out about any beginners' courses, and even discover whether they like what they see before they go any further.
Coaching could benefit hugely from having an apprenticeship system. Learning a bit at a time will back up and help on hand frequently.

 

[eljetico]

To bring the thread back on track...

If you have a better route I am all ears.

(Thanks for canvassing opinion!)

Assuming the goal is to get action to reform competition procedures at all levels, and this being a very specific complaint backed by irrefutable evidence I would try escalating it along a predictable path through the organisations closest to the issue and with the power to actually effect change where its needed.

Present the evidence, present a solution (to rules, procedures etc) and work the problem.

I would do this with the support and assistance of my fellow archers, having made extensive publicity of the issue, and presented the facts on the widest possible platforms.

My route would be linear and assumes I also have the evidence that complaints have been made - and recorded - on the day of competition to the TO, the club/organizing committee, judges etc.

The escalation through these steps assumes that the complaint and evidence is national in scale but is considered baseless by the relevant organisation, hence the need to escalate (discussion of whistle-blowing channels, or lack of, might be a topic for another thread).

1. Letter of complaint to all regional associations - got to cover the bases.
2. Escalate to AGB - I would think the process really starts here, if anything to avoid the ‘did you address this to the national governing body?’ later.
3. Escalate to Sport England.
4. Escalate to WA and DCMS.
5. Escalate to, I don’t know, IOC, European Courts, the press…? WA actually not being the last resort, perhaps...

...possibly unimaginative and probably naive (you may well be laughing...), or missing some steps. Maybe you’ve gone through these steps already but you asked whether I had a better route so I’m guessing not. Or perhaps vaulting all the lower levels is, in fact, simply more efficient and saves all the faff. My hope would be that each level is given a chance to act on the information and implement the requested change before moving it up the ladder.

Is it a better route? It all depends, I guess, on the goal of the complaint and without the evidence its difficult to grasp it's scope.

Again, not trying to denounce the whole proposition - I’m interested in your decision to go straight to WA.

 

[Eluned]

...possibly unimaginative and probably naive (you may well be laughing...), or missing some steps. Maybe you?ve gone through these steps already but you asked whether I had a better route so I?m guessing not. Or perhaps vaulting all the lower levels is, in fact, simply more efficient and saves all the faff. My hope would be that each level is given a chance to act on the information and implement the requested change before moving it up the ladder.

No I am not laughing because I believe that you are sincere and I also see that you are aware that you might not know. In real practical terms what amount of time commitment do you think one might expect to dedicate to such a process that escalates to the top tiers of your levels? (Interesting to note, by the way, that you interject Sport England between NGB and WGB). What costs do you anticipate would be involved once you escalate past NGB and require specialised professional assistance? I would suggest a starting point to be an initial minimum commitment of ?60 000 with the very real expectation that this will quickly exceed ?100 000. But please do not let those who occupy the tiers from regional associations to NGB know about this becuase it might give them ideas that they can stonewall, dissemble, procrastinate, avoid and play tennis with the issue knocking back and forth between region and NGB until your pockets and determination are exhausted...ssshhh it will be our secret because we do not need to give them ideas that they could not think of for themselves.

 

[LMK]

To bring the thread back on track...



(Thanks for canvassing opinion!)

Assuming the goal is to get action to reform competition procedures at all levels, and this being a very specific complaint backed by irrefutable evidence I would try escalating it along a predictable path through the organisations closest to the issue and with the power to actually effect change where its needed.

Present the evidence, present a solution (to rules, procedures etc) and work the problem.

I would do this with the support and assistance of my fellow archers, having made extensive publicity of the issue, and presented the facts on the widest possible platforms.

My route would be linear and assumes I also have the evidence that complaints have been made - and recorded - on the day of competition to the TO, the club/organizing committee, judges etc.

The escalation through these steps assumes that the complaint and evidence is national in scale but is considered baseless by the relevant organisation, hence the need to escalate (discussion of whistle-blowing channels, or lack of, might be a topic for another thread).

1. Letter of complaint to all regional associations - got to cover the bases.
2. Escalate to AGB - I would think the process really starts here, if anything to avoid the ?did you address this to the national governing body?? later.
3. Escalate to Sport England.
4. Escalate to WA and DCMS.
5. Escalate to, I don?t know, IOC, European Courts, the press?? WA actually not being the last resort, perhaps...

...possibly unimaginative and probably naive (you may well be laughing...), or missing some steps. Maybe you?ve gone through these steps already but you asked whether I had a better route so I?m guessing not. Or perhaps vaulting all the lower levels is, in fact, simply more efficient and saves all the faff. My hope would be that each level is given a chance to act on the information and implement the requested change before moving it up the ladder.

Is it a better route? It all depends, I guess, on the goal of the complaint and without the evidence its difficult to grasp it's scope.

Again, not trying to denounce the whole proposition - I?m interested in your decision to go straight to WA.

At what point does a tournament become the responsibility of the judges on the tournament day, if you turn up at a shoot and suspect there has been some process of selecting targets for specific archers is this not something to raise through the judges?

 

[eljetico]

I mentioned doing that part earlier in the post, LMK:

assumes I also have the evidence that complaints have been made - and recorded - on the day of competition to the TO, the club/organizing committee, judges etc.

I was hoping to hear from spdixon on the earlier question. I can appreciate financial and other costs might mount on such a path as I suggested but would those costs disappear if petitioning WA direct?

Why risk the cost - and potential fallout - of acting alone on an issue that purportedly affects all competitive archers in the UK now and in the future?

It might have been said earlier but don't such strategies keep UK archers distant from the issues, remaining subject to top-down edicts rather than informed and actively engaged in ground-up reform (should it be found to be necessary ;-))?

 

[eljetico]

Hey spdixon: any update/news on your submission to WA?

 

[Munsterman]

Hey spdixon: any update/news on your submission to WA?

Given the time elapsed, you would probably be right in concluding that the absence of evidence is in itself evidence of absence.

 

[hodge]

Only advantage I've known is at places like Lilleshall and Telford convention centre for BUCS being closer to the toilets than being right down the far end.