What must I do to become a Prevot?

[big daddy]

I am currently a Moniteur. I want to be a prevot. What should i study? What are the requirement?

[RITFencing]

You're missing the forest for the trees, man.

Instead of focusing on ranks or certifications, just become a better coach. Eventually, if you take the tests, these things will come. They're just a rough indicator of your ability to train fencers, they should not be taken as more important than said ability.

[Allen Evans]

I agree with RIT. But if you're that concerned, I would look here:

http://www.usfca.org/usfca/index.asp?section=4

A

[Durando]

In France it is a year and both a moniteur and initateur, a set number of hours in pedagogy clinics, and then a practical and written exam given by the state. To keep it, you have to continue to participate in pedagogy clinics conducted by the regional technical director and teacher trainer every so often.

[big daddy]

Thanks guys. I enjoy training fencers. im better at it this year than I was last year. I think that is the goal I should strive for rather than a title. Once more thanks for your imput

[Allen Evans]

Originally Posted by Durando

In France it is a year and both a moniteur and initateur, a set number of hours in pedagogy clinics, and then a practical and written exam given by the state. To keep it, you have to continue to participate in pedagogy clinics conducted by the regional technical director and teacher trainer every so often.

Is there a National curriculumn for this ongoing training after the exam? What are the duties of the "regional training director"?

A

[Durando]

Originally Posted by Allen Evans

Is there a National curriculumn for this ongoing training after the exam? What are the duties of the "regional training director"?

A

Not sure. I'm pretty certain there are national courses that MdA's are obliged to attend from time to time. The "cadres de formation" the teaching cadre is selected by the FFE. Also, there's a real shortage of MdA's. Which is something to think about if someone wanted to learn in France.

[jfarmer]

Originally Posted by Allen Evans

Is there a National curriculumn for this ongoing training after the exam? What are the duties of the "regional training director"?

A

Allen,

I don't know if you've read Jerry Benson's article in the latest Swordmaster, but something like that is what the USFCA Certification & Accreditation Board is working on.

If you want to become a Prevot, you take the written test & then the practical exam.

How do you prepare for them? Well you could apprentice yourself to a Maestro for several years and hope that you adsorb enough knowledge. (The traditional route for many coaches). You could attend the USFA Coach's Coach every summer for a number of years, practicing the new material until for feel confident to pass the tests. Or you could study the USFCA reading list, attend as many USFCA clinics as you can, applying the material to your teaching until you feel confident to take the tests.

As I understand it, what the USFCA-CAB is proposing to do is to establish a series of classes, seminars, clinics, etc. that will be in effect the classwork needed to prepare to become certified. (In some respects we are at the point in history where a lawyer "read the law" and clerked in preparation for bar. THe new propsoal is a step toward "law school.")

John Farmer
Coach, Oak Ridge Fencers Club

[Padawan]

In the past (1995) the certification was composed of the following criteria. A written exam that included essays, a practical exam, and you had to be a monit. in all three weapons for at least a year.

The practical was supposed to be with a student who had attained at least a B rating in one weapon. I had to perform specific lessons from the 3 maestros that sat on the board during the exam. Getting 3 of them together was the hard part for our exam in NY. Bill Shipman from Brandeis was one Gradkosky (sp?) was another and some other guy from LI that escapes me.

My favorite part of the exam was the question about teaching at a college that had a limited amount of equipment. How would I split up the group in the three different weapons? I asked if I could have a teaching aid, a tennis ball. They said yes and my response made them laugh for about 5 minutes, but I passed the question.

[Allen Evans]

I think the USFCA is making major strides in making the testing process much more transparent then it was even ten years ago. However, I still think they have to make more progress in some of the practical aspects of testing. Just two years ago, when my wife questioned a member of an exam board about passing a coach onto his Prevot, his reply was "You should have seen the other canidates".

To me, this speaks to a lack of a benchmark for what constitutes a "good lesson". It also speaks to a testing process that relys a lot of first impressions, or fleeting impressions, at best. I would love to see the USFCA post some sample lessons on their web site, showing the difference between a Moniteur teaching a simple action (say, advance lunge with disengage), and the same action taught by a Prevot and Maitre. Even something as simple as this would have helped me out a lot when I took my Prevot. Even four or five actions would be enough to set a tone and give a canidate a feel for what they need to do.

AE

[oiuyt]

I am not a member of the USFCA, nor have I sat any of their exams.

I have, however, been the student for a prevot exam (all three weapons, despite the exam criteria specifying that the student in one of the three portions of the test should be unfamiliar to the candidate).

In one of the sections, one of the examiners asked the candidate to teach a particular type of action with a certain class of preparation. The question was phrased somewhat ambiguously.

The candidate tried a couple of things to figure out what was being asked of him, got confused, asked for clarification from the examiner, got it (which was much more clear, but, IMO, not what had been asked for originally), tried a couple more things, before tying himself in mental knots and giving up, asking ME if I knew how to do what was being asked.

I then took on the instructor role, and taught the requested lesson segment to the candidate in the pupil role. Successfully. And then expanded to requested variants at the prompting of the panel. We never switched roles back to where I was in the pupil role for that segment. The candidate never demostrated that he could successfully execute the instructor role for that action.

He passed.

His strongest scores were in sabre (he's an epee guy with some foil experience. In sabre he was smart enough to just give me cues and let me make lots of subtle adjustments to make everything look really nice -- in foil and epee he overcomplicated everything trying to show how much he knew). The top thing that he was complemented on was the way in which he was willing to ask for help from his student to get out of a bad situation and figure out how an action was supposed to work.

Now I have no doubts that this particular candidate deserves to be a prevot. I'd worked with him for quite a while before (both as coaches, neither of us was ever the other's student), and have worked with him at clinics since. I also have no doubts that, based on the demonstrated performance in the exam, he deserved to fail. At least by any criteria that I would consider reasonable. Other issues throughout the testing were more minor, but he was very nervous and badly underperformed that day. And it just didn't make a difference, the panel wanted to pass him.

He is currently working on his master's thesis. I have little doubt that he'll pass that test as well.

Now I do expect to eventually rejoin the USFCA (I was a member for a year before I realized that there were never any clinics offered in my half of the country (that has since changed, but they're neither common nor limited to USFCA members)) and go through the certification process. Why? Because I want nice diplomas. Because the titles carry some small bit of cachet. Because I feel that people ought to belong to professional organizations in their field of occupation.

Hopefully the changes that the USFCA is currently undergoing (altough they've been undergoing them for a while now...) will improve the organization to the point where I'll get more value than that out of it. There might even be instruction offered, not just certification.

Meanwhile I attend other coaching education opportunities. Coaches College. The Czajkowski workshop in NYC last summer (which was "co-sponsored" by the USFCA). What I'm focused on is improving my students' abilities and results, to which end I work to improve my ability as a coach and instructor. USFCA titles have little to do with those goals. If being a member otherwise helped me progress towards them I would, of course, join immediately. I have little evidence that, currently, that's the case.

Padawan- I have little doubt that your tennis ball story would amuse people here as well. Perhaps you should retell it?

-B

[keith]

Originally Posted by Allen Evans

To me, this speaks to a lack of a benchmark for what constitutes a "good lesson".

you do realise that when sisyphus was dragged back to hades he was given a choice between two futile tasks

But seriously; I have always though it slightly odd that it is only coaches who take the practical exams, when really it might make more sense for their students to be examined - or at least examined as well. For most 'creative' professions (and fencing coaches by and large strive not to produce automata) it is usual for the examined to produce a portfolio of their work rather than simply demonstrate they know how to hold a brush, chisel, foil etc.

[Allen Evans]

Oiuyt's story is one I have heard a number of times, from a variety of different coaches. I had much the same experiance on two seperate occasions in exams in which I was a student (both in epee). I think this points to the fact that often, the examining board itself isn't always clear what constitutes a good lesson, and passing sometimes depends on factors that are not readily apparent -- and certainly aren't on the grade sheet.

So. I'll return to the first advice, given by RIT, and expand on it: Work on being a good coach first. As you and your students improve, you won't wonder if you're ready to take a Prevot exam, rather, someone will ask you why you haven't taken it yet.

AE

[keith]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

snips...
And it just didn't make a difference, the panel wanted to pass him
....... snips

I'll hazard a guess that at least one of the panel members was his mentor or that (per AE's observation) from watching him on other occasions new that he was competent at that level.

Shouldn't just blame the USFCA for this type of behaviour - I had a similar mental meltdown during a BAF exam (well maybe not quite as bad); after some polite questioning from the panel I had to be reminded (in a stage whisper) by my 'pupil' that if he was going to learn preparations perhaps he should also learn how to defend against AiP .

So on the recurring theme; The exam is the accepted way to test people, but passing it is not what makes one a better coach. Rather passing it demonstrates a degree of peer acceptance of one's competence - which was probably established before you sat the exam.

[Padawan]

So they said sure you have a tennis ball.

I told them that I would have the students come in one at a time and I would have them stand against wall and I would throw the ball at them.

1. If they caught the ball and asked why I threw it, I would make them a foil fencer.

2.If they dodged the ball I would make them a epee fencer.

3. If they caught the ball and threw it back at me I would make them a sabre fencer..........

[riceboy]

So I'm just curious, do you guys see the Provost exam as recognition of improvement, rather than a means of improvement in an of itself. I suppose with no formal training program in place this would be the case, but how do you see it?

I suppose I'm comparing this to the classical program I'm going through at San Jose State (and my upcoming instructor's exam). For good or for ill, the standards required by the board are very clearly delineated, and all instructor, provosts, or maestro level candidates give the same basic foil, epee and sabre lessons. The assumed level of the student changes, and the level of feedback, lesson control and general "maestroliness" must be higher at each progressive level, but the lesson stays the same regardless. At the same time, the "random actions" that are assigned by the board increase exponentially in difficulty. An instructor may get the action "teach the flanconades in order", while a provost may get "teach the double feint by flanconade in fourth and disengagment, instructor retreats and parries third (six) and holds, student performs the second form of the renewed attack", and a maestro level candiate may get an action in time, with multiple counter attacks, feints, renewed attacks or second intentions. Maestro candidates must also complete a 50 page minimum academic thesis, which I believe is submitted to Maestro Gaugler(himself an archaeology professor) for approval.

Much of this comes from the strong "classical" feel of the school, since the style of fencing is so strongly described through lessons, the format of the exam and what constitutes correct actions can be fully controlled. They do not have to accept all lesson styles as equal and so can have firm expectations for their students.

On the other hand, such an approach has obvious drawbacks. Since the style is so orthodox, the variety of good coaching methodologies are ignored in favor of a single format. Also, actions in time, or in prep are not as easily demonstrated in the format, unless requested by a maestro on the board.

The focus of the program is considerably different however; since there is a minimum one year training period required for each exam the program is more focused on training coaches, rather than recongizing existing skills. As such, it can train in a single method, and then expect its students to be able to perform in that system, regardless of how they plan to coach when they graduate.

Just some thoughts, feel free to comment, ask questions, or criticize. As I go forward through the program, I am coming to better understand both the strengths and weaknesses of their approach, and I'm willing to bet that there is no perfect solution. Also, remember that the program does not purport to teach olympic coaches, but to teach classical fencing maestri.

Another thought added later:
The ability to perform under pressure is a key component for a coach in any sport. I have a similar problem to the candidate oiuyt was describing: when i am being watched (and under pressure), and I flub something, I have the tendency to get frustrated and bang my head against the wall. I know the maestri will give me a random action that they know is too hard for my level, just to see what will happen when I get frustrated. I do know that they want me to pass, but at the same time if i mess it up, I know that they will have no qualms about failing me. As such, even if all the mastri on the board know that the candidate deserves the title, if he can not perform in front of them, then might not he deserve to fail? This could promotes a sense of transparency and prevent allegations of a good ol boys network. In theory the maestro who trained you should not let that interfere with his score for you on the exam, he is expected to be an impartial judge.

[riceboy]

Originally Posted by keith

you do realise that when sisyphus was dragged back to hades he was given a choice between two futile tasks

But seriously; I have always though it slightly odd that it is only coaches who take the practical exams, when really it might make more sense for their students to be examined - or at least examined as well. For most 'creative' professions (and fencing coaches by and large strive not to produce automata) it is usual for the examined to produce a portfolio of their work rather than simply demonstrate they know how to hold a brush, chisel, foil etc.

In theory, if one is trying to create (rather than recognize) good coaches, then what you are looking for is potential. If you have already trained olympians, then what need you of the title? If you are good enough to train olympians, that may be what the board is looking for.

[Allen Evans]

Originally Posted by riceboy

So I'm just curious, do you guys see the Provost exam as recognition of improvement, rather than a means of improvement in an of itself. I suppose with no formal training program in place this would be the case, but how do you see it?

My Prevot exam was a bench mark of where I was as a coach at the time. It was far tougher than any of the Coach's College exams I had taken to that date (I had Level 2 in all three weapons). I particularly struggled with the saber portion, a weapon I didn't have many students in, and hadn't fenced in almost 10 years at that point. To be honest, I hadn't expected to take the exam (I was a student for two other coaches also taking the exam and it was suggested that I stand for the test, since I was there, anyway) and didn't have much time to prepare. I didn't expect to pass -- though I did.

I think the Prevot exam showed me that my saber needed to be a lot stronger. I went back to taking lessons in Seattle, and started working with an experianced saber fencer after the test. My foil and epee were where I expected them to be.

For me, the test motivated me to brace up my weak spot: saber. The Prevot test also firmed my resolve not to take the Maitre exam until I was good an ready -- though, as one of the Board members told me later: "We break you in the Prevot, and that should make your Maitre a snap".

Originally Posted by riceboy

The focus of the program is considerably different however; since there is a minimum one year training period required for each exam the program is more focused on training coaches, rather than recongizing existing skills.

The USFCA program recognizes that there is more than one way to solve any problem. There is no "National School" to be taught and tested on. One of the actions I taught in epee was an opposition 4 riposte (right handed coach and student). One of the Board members questioned this action, and I replied (perhaps rather brusquely) that I had actually hit someone at a NAC with it last month, that answer more than satisfied the Board.

The San Jose program is very internally consistant: the coaches train the students in the system that they are going to be tested on. There may be levels of difficulty, but hardly any surprises. A saber student at San Jose, for instance, is not going to be asked to demostrate and contrast the Hungarian box system of parries with the contrasting approach of taking the parries out early.

One of the problems of this approach is that it teaches knowlege of the system, but not really an ability to teach. Even the "bouting" lessons that I've seen/heard of tend to be pretty dry, formal affairs, without much room for improvisation.

A good example: I was taking a lesson in Level 4 foil a few years ago with a very good coach and fencer, Nils Larson. He got a little complacent in the lesson, got too close, and dropped his tip a bit. I fleched and hit him unawares: a complete surprise to him -- which the Board noted. Near the end of the lesson, Nils did the same thing, and then pulled space and made a parry as I fleched, forcing me to make a disengage to hit. Nils turned a "mistake" into a lesson action. I'm not sure this improvisation would be welcome in the SanJose program.

Ultimately, the goal of Prevot/Instructor/Maitre program at San Jose is designed to propogate a style and approach to fencing which cannot be disputed by the canidate (for good or ill). The goal of the USFCA tests are to look for those qualities which made a good fencing teacher. While a certain amount of fencing knowlege MUST be demonstrated, the Board is often looking for qualities which are not always easily demonstrated, and, as previously pointed out, may already be known to the examiners.

AE

[Allen Evans]

Originally Posted by riceboy

In theory, if one is trying to create (rather than recognize) good coaches, then what you are looking for is potential. If you have already trained olympians, then what need you of the title? If you are good enough to train olympians, that may be what the board is looking for.

This is one of the struggles of the USFA's Coach's College as they try to make the criteria for their Level 5 exam (very few of which were given out before the courses were pulled and re-evaluated. I am not sure what the status of the Level 5 program is now).

If the standards are set very high, the only people who can meet them are professional coaches who are already being very successful. Why should they show up to a program? If the standards are set too low, is the USFA telling graduates that they are something they really aren't?

AE