Referee exam vs Coach exam

[MdA]

In many of the threads in this forum, it seems that many people do not see the need for coaches to pass an examination.

Why do we accept the fact that referees must be examined and rated? I know that in order for competitions to be sanctioned by the USFA/FIE the referees must be rated. ...and so the fencers ratings are tied into the referees ratings and vice versa.

So in order to raise the level of fencing in America, the decision was made a while back to raise the level of the referees.

So what can we do to raise the level of the coaches? What if every certified USFA club needed to have at least one certified coach? How can we make this work...cooperation between the USFA amd USFCA?

[oiuyt]

I know that in order for competitions to be sanctioned by the USFA/FIE the referees must be rated.

This is not true.

It may be true in some divisions.

-B

[Allen Evans]

I don't have any answers to the questions, but I'll draw some comparisons:

1. The referee exam is easier than ANY coaching exam I've ever taken. The observation for my one-time 6 in saber took 10 minutes. My Prevot exam took one and some hours (if we count just the practical). I was constantly challenged by the board on my Prevot exam to explain, clarify, and demonstrate.

2. I don't believe that the entry level referee rating (10) requires an ability to referee, simply to pass the written test. I could be mistaken on this, however, it could be that even level 10's are observed now.

3. Rated referees are not required for USFA sanctioning of tournaments, but a rating is required if you're going to earn significant money (?) as a referee. There is absolutely no requirement to have a coaching certificate to charge lesson fees. I know, I did it for quite some time.

4. I've been able to easily attend a referee seminar every year that I have been a fencer. The most I ever paid to attend was $50. My last coaching certification required me to travel to Co. Springs, and outlay about $1000. Coaching seminars at any level are hard to come by (in VA, I have been the only one to offer coaching seminars in the past five years, and I've never attended one in VA given by anyone else). When I took my Prevot test in the late 90's -- along with two others -- no Prevots had been granted in some 5 years. (I had to fly to San Diego to take the test...and fly students with us).

5. There has not been a firm commitment, ala the work done by the FOC, to raise the level of coaching in the US. No one has charted a course in "coaching development" for the United States.

6. Evaluating a good referee is MUCH easier than evaluating a good coach. Referee skills, by their very nature, are mostly objective. Coaching skills, on the other hand, can be very subjective. A coach that works for one fencer will not necessarily work for another. Most fencers in the US don't know very much about fencing, so it's difficult for them to evaluate a coach.

7. Referee ratings do seem to correspond to referee skill. Currently, coaching "ratings" (certification) do not always correspond to coaching skills.

..and there are probably others that I haven't thought of.

Some conclusions:

Coaching education in the US needs to be more accessible, more consistant, and more objective. If the barriers to certification are removed (expense, time and travel) there will be less resistance to achieving certification.

Coaching information needs to be widely dissiminated, not just to coaches but to fencers. Most fencers don't know what a good coach should know, so they accept any level of skill what so ever, as long as it's above their own.

Coaching certification must be consistant and of a measurable standard.

I think attempting to put any sort of requirement in place for a certified coach to teach at a club is going to be very difficult when the demand for coaches outstrips the supply, AND fencers are willing to put up with average (or below average) coaches because they feel that they have no other options.

Allen Evans

[tbryan]

So in order to raise the level of fencing in America, the decision was made a while back to raise the level of the referees.

Especially relevant to the the discussion on USFCA and coaching education in the other thread, note that the FOC tied education and certification. That is, they did not say, "Here's the exam and standards for the practicals that you'll need to pass for various referee ratings. Go find someone to help you learn how to referee, and come to us when you think you're ready. Some referees in your area may organize some sort of classes on learning to be a referee. That might also help you prepare."

The referee rating process requires that all rated referees attend a standardized training seminar. Referee candidates may not take the written exam unless they have attended such a seminar within the last year. That is, the training and the first steps at certification are tightly tied together. Rated referees may still hold on to crazy ideas, but they have heard most of the standard interpretations at least once before becoming certified.

There may be other informal referee training seminars organized among local referees (for example, both Virginia and North Carolina have been doing this in the last couple of years), but they do not take the place of the standardized referee training. No referee becomes rated without taking part in that standardized training system.

Of course, after that, moving up the "certification" ladder happens in the course of refereeing. That is, referees are observed while they are refereeing at tournaments. I do not think that this model would work well for coaching certification.

[MdA]

....Coaching education in the US needs to be more accessible, more consistant, and more objective. If the barriers to certification are removed (expense, time and travel) there will be less resistance to achieving certification.

Allen Evans

All excellent comments and corrections...thanks. How did the FOC remove the barriers (expense, time and travel)?

My coaching education cost me thousands$$$, lotsa time, and travel. The Coaches College was a great start to this process. At the time 1986 the USFCA and the CC were working together. Something broke down by 1989...my last year.

I agree with Allen's point made in other threads. For the intermediate to master level it was more convenient for me to go elsewhere with apprenticeships and eventually the German Academy.

I don't know why so many coaches education programs have faltered in the USA over the years. I know that funding is a major issue. Programs like AFA and Gaugler's had a dedicated faculty member who was at the University for another purpose (NCAA Coach or professor of Archeology) and took on coaching education as an addition service to the community.

[tbryan]

Why do we accept the fact that referees must be examined and rated?

Well, there is the fact that all of the referees hired at national events are rated (I think). And the assigner won't give them the hard bouts until they attain a certain level. If fencers realize that, then they start to expect certified referees.

It also helps that the FOC requires referees to be active. They must attend a NAC every year, or they must attend a referee training seminar again to make sure that they have heard the most recent rules and interpretations. (For example, as little as a year ago, we were explicitly told in the referee seminar that the attack in foil does not end with the front foot. If that interpretation changes, I expect to hear about it next year at basically any referee seminar that I attend.)

Referees must also referee at their rated level and be observed doing it. If not, their rating will be reduced. Thus, it's impossible to have a referee with a "2 rating" who has not refereed in 6 years. It may be easy for such a referee to reestablish himself if he decides to become active again. He may still be as good as every other 2-rated referee. He simply no longer has his referee rating.

One of the important aspects of certification is consistency. I need to be able to expect a certain level of performance if a person is certified. Otherwise, the certification isn't very useful to the customer or the employer. The kinds of "continuing education" requirements that I mentioned above help to drive more consistency among those who are rated/certified. There may be other good referees who are not certified, but referees with a current rating at a certain level should be able to perform to that level.

Of course, the system is not perfect, and there have recently been threads on f.net discussing options for making the referee ratings more meaningful and consistent. That's why you don't see a lot of respect on the forums for referees rated below a 5. The quality of referees rated as a 7 is all over the map.

On the other hand, while there are always differences among referees, there's a certain consistency among referees that are certified at a 5 or above. To me, the frustrating thing on f.net referee threads is that many people want to discuss or argue about actions that are called with almost perfect consistency by every referee rated 5 and above. If you're a good fencer, those are the referees you'll be fencing for. Stop arguing. Go see how those referees call the action: that's the reality that you need to deal with.

In my opinion, the second most damaging thing for the USFCA are the certified Fencing Masters who are not "current." I think that we all know some Fencing Masters like that. While I can respect the study and effort that these coaches went through to obtain certification, it does not inspire me to pursue certification myself.

(Since you might be wondering, I think that the most damaging thing for the USFCA are the good coaches who show little interest in the USFCA. When the USFCA cannot interest someone like Allen or Jason, who appear to be interested in improving as coaches and with being involved with coaching education, it makes me wonder what the USFCA really has to offer aspiring coaches.)

[Allen Evans]

(Since you might be wondering, I think that the most damaging thing for the USFCA are the good coaches who show little interest in the USFCA. When the USFCA cannot interest someone like Allen or Jason, who appear to be interested in improving as coaches and with being involved with coaching education, it makes me wonder what the USFCA really has to offer aspiring coaches.)

A small correction. I was a member of the USFCA for many years, then let my membership lapse. I have since renewed it, this summer, to attend the coaching conference in August.

AE

[MdA]

In my opinion, the second most damaging thing for the USFCA are the certified Fencing Masters who are not "current." I think that we all know some Fencing Masters like that. While I can respect the study and effort that these coaches went through to obtain certification, it does not inspire me to pursue certification myself.

(Since you might be wondering, I think that the most damaging thing for the USFCA are the good coaches who show little interest in the USFCA. When the USFCA cannot interest someone like Allen or Jason, who appear to be interested in improving as coaches and with being involved with coaching education, it makes me wonder what the USFCA really has to offer aspiring coaches.)

I think you have it upon 2 key issues for the USFCA. If I may rephrase a little...we need to get rid of the old guys who are not current...and have not kept up with continuing education. I think what I am hearing is that FM rating should expire down...like a referee or fencer.

And we need to get new and aspiring FMs into the organization and in position to take on the education program.

We are electing new USFCA officers in August...see USFCA.org for details...this could be a place to start if coaches volunteer time and effort to help them.

Personally, I have been working to replace myself in the USFCA for the last four years. I will continue to be active and support the USFCA with as much effort as I can afford but I probably won't be staying current.

One of the problems is that we can't get new coaches to join and work their way up the food chain. Many would say it is the old guys pushing them down....but I think it is also a general resistance by coaches to continuing education and examination.

I think it is more of the barriers to certification that Allen outlines above. The USFCA still requires a member to be certified to be an officer...or committee chair...that only supports the AAI criteria....so it back to the cart before the horse...

I also believe that some minimum entry level training should be required to coach. When I volunteered to coach my son's Under-10 soccer team. The local league required me to pay a fee, and take a weekend clinic..I don't remember if there was a test.

[MdA]

A small correction. I was a member of the USFCA for many years, then let my membership lapse. I have since renewed it, this summer, to attend the coaching conference in August.

AE

Thanks Allen. I truly believe your support and Jason's will help us

[tbryan]

Disclaimer: I'm not currently a USFCA member.

I think you have it upon 2 key issues for the USFCA. If I may rephrase a little...we need to get rid of the old guys who are not current...and have not kept up with continuing education.

I don't know that you need to get rid of them. You just need to work so that people have other examples to look at. That is, make sure that the public face of the organization emphasizes the active, successful coaches whose students are seeing increased success over time.

Once, in college, I overheard two professors talking about undergraduate teaching assignments for the upcoming quarter. It was a department full of PhDs, but some of them sucked at teaching classes and had no interest at becoming better teachers. Unfortunately, some of those same bad teachers wanted to teach the better undergrads in the more advanced classes. So, the department head was trying to figure out what assignments to give the poor teachers so that they would be satisfied but so that they did the least damage to the overall program.

If you have folks who are going to be active and damaging, at least minimize the damage.

I think what I am hearing is that FM rating should expire down...like a referee or fencer.

Not necessarily. That's one system, but I think that it's fairly uncommon. Many professional organizations do have a continuing education requirement. That might be more appropriate. There are still certified professionals who are significantly below expectations, but they must achieve at least X hours or credits of continuing education every Y years. If they don't, they lose their certification and have to go back through the certification process. That's no guarantee that they're keeping up with the times, but it certainly emphasizes that certification isn't like a diploma. It's a standard that must be maintained through constant learning.

I'm not sure whether the USFCA membership would be interested in such a requirement to maintain their certification. Or they may think that it's brilliant. I really have no idea. In any case, it might encourage more of the membership to attend workshops and work together. Even better if the continuing education opportunities for moniteurs and prevots helped them to prepare for the next level of certification, but that would be a long term goal. That gets us back to the idea of tying the training/education into the certification.

And we need to get new and aspiring FMs into the organization and in position to take on the education program.

Well, that was the idea put forward by Allen and Jason. It doesn't need to be just new FMs. I actually do know some very accomplished FMs, and they seem to be more common that the other type.

One of the problems is that we can't get new coaches to join and work their way up the food chain. Many would say it is the old guys pushing them down....but I think it is also a general resistance by coaches to continuing education and examination.

Possibly...of course, the continued operation of the USFA Coaches College seems to imply that there is a steady demand for education up to a certain level. I'm not sure what the demand and attendance for the higher level courses actually is.

I think it is more of the barriers to certification that Allen outlines above.

Probably. I think that the other major barrier is the education issue that they outlined before. If I'm at a club with active USFCA members, then it's fairly easy for them to show me the way and get me started. If I'm just some former fencer who wants to start a club in my new town, and there aren't any clubs nearby, how do I get trained as a coach? The USFCA doesn't seem to offer me any easy options. It seems to depend on active, individual mentoring by more experienced coaches. The USFA Coaches College gives me a very easy training path with a combined "certification" process.

A lot of the people I met at Coaches College last year were more in this position (isolated coaches with no mentor). I think that these folks would be interested in the USFCA if there were a training program to teach them how to be coaches combined with a moniteur certification exam at the end. Since they don't see that, they end up going to Coaches College instead.

I also believe that some minimum entry level training should be required to coach. When I volunteered to coach my son's Under-10 soccer team. The local league required me to pay a fee, and take a weekend clinic..I don't remember if there was a test.

Who required the training? The USASA? Or the local organization (YMCA, Parks and Rec., etc.) that was running the soccer program?

[MdA]

Who required the training? The USASA? Or the local organization (YMCA, Parks and Rec., etc.) that was running the soccer program?

It was some national organization...might have been USASA..I got a nice little badge that I had to wear at the games...although enforcement by referees was not very good. I didn't get any black cards so maybe I didn't test the system.

[erooMynohtnA]

I think the difference in emphasis on certification of referees and coaches is that you can decide who your coach is, but you can't decide who your ref is. If you go to a club, and you find the coach isn't up to standards, you leave. If you go a to a tournament, and you get a bad ref, you're out of luck. As such, it pays to have more rigidly defined skill levels for refs.

You have time to determine whether or not you like a coach, if he knows what he's doing, or if you're getting better. You also have his professional record, all his students to judge him by beforehand. I think a ref's rating correlates to a coach's students' competitive results, not the coach's title.

As Allen pointed out, it's a different type of test as well. A referee is rated based on the calls he makes refereeing a bout and the rules he knows, so he's rated on exactly what he is expected to do as a ref. A fencing coach has to display certain skills and certain knowledge, but it's in a slightly artificial setting. When you get down to it, it doesn't prove he can put a winning fencer on the strip, which is his job as a fencing coach.* A referee has to direct a bout to get a rating, so he has--at least once--proved his ability to direct a bout at that level.

Extending that line of reasoning further, you could make the level of fencers the magesterial candidate has produced a criterion. Is that a good idea? It's probably a terrible idea. But I do think the ultimate judge of a coach isn't a board, it's his students.

It seems that most people agree that the coaches who are producing winning students but not pursuing certification are damaging the credilibility of the USFCA. I've argued that the term master doesn't apply to anyone who can produce top fencers, but maybe it should for the moment. What if the USFCA were to give honorary certification based upon proven excellence in coaching? It would (hopefully) bring the top "rogue" coaches into the organization.

*Obviously every fencer has different goals, and winning on the strip isn't always one of them. Plus, there's management, personality, etc to be considered.

[oiuyt]

2. I don't believe that the entry level referee rating (10) requires an ability to referee, simply to pass the written test. I could be mistaken on this, however, it could be that even level 10's are observed now.

Your statement is still correct. Passing the general and at least one weapon-specific written test (after attending the seminar) results in receiving a 10 rating in the weapon(s) passed.

3. Rated referees are not required for USFA sanctioning of tournaments, but a rating is required if you're going to earn significant money (?) as a referee.

Mmmm. I'm not sure that's true, to the extent that ANYONE can earn significant money. Collegiate refereeing doesn't always require certification. Scholastic refereeing, from my observations, doesn't require certification. Those are probably the highest-paying refereeing jobs available (on an absolute and hourly basis respectively). Local refereeing can pay well and in most locations doesn't require certification.

That said, being certified certainly helps get hired and get paid more in many cases once hired. And a referee rating is required to be hired for NACs/JOs/SNs.

Not necessarily. That's one system, but I think that it's fairly uncommon. Many professional organizations do have a continuing education requirement. That might be more appropriate. There are still certified professionals who are significantly below expectations, but they must achieve at least X hours or credits of continuing education every Y years. If they don't, they lose their certification and have to go back through the certification process. That's no guarantee that they're keeping up with the times, but it certainly emphasizes that certification isn't like a diploma. It's a standard that must be maintained through constant learning.

I'm not sure whether the USFCA membership would be interested in such a requirement to maintain their certification. Or they may think that it's brilliant. I really have no idea. In any case, it might encourage more of the membership to attend workshops and work together. Even better if the continuing education opportunities for moniteurs and prevots helped them to prepare for the next level of certification, but that would be a long term goal. That gets us back to the idea of tying the training/education into the certification.

I think that a continuing education requirement is a good idea. It seems to work well when required in other industries (CSCS certification, etc.).

-B

[MdA]

I think the difference in emphasis on certification of referees and coaches is that you can decide who your coach is, but you can't decide who your ref is. If you go to a club, and you find the coach isn't up to standards, you leave. If you go a to a tournament, and you get a bad ref, you're out of luck. As such, it pays to have more rigidly defined skill levels for refs.

You have time to determine whether or not you like a coach, if he knows what he's doing, or if you're getting better. You also have his professional record, all his students to judge him by beforehand. I think a ref's rating correlates to a coach's students' competitive results, not the coach's title.

These are some good points…and I think your right. This is how the system currently works for selecting a coach. But, wouldn’t having certification be an extra bonus factor for a coach? Do you think that fencers just don’t understand the certifications? Your right, for referees the fencer doesn’t need to know the rating of the ref,,,that decision is made by the assigners. So the fencing public is making the decision on the coach …and know or care little about certification…most fencers and their parents are interested in results…and perhaps they know certified coaches and don’t like them. Maybe the only coaches interested in certification are the ones that nobody likes…this is a public relations problem for the USFCA…and CC.

It seems that most people agree that the coaches who are producing winning students but not pursuing certification are damaging the credilibility of the USFCA. I've argued that the term master doesn't apply to anyone who can produce top fencers, but maybe it should for the moment. What if the USFCA were to give honorary certification based upon proven excellence in coaching? It would (hopefully) bring the top "rogue" coaches into the organization.
*Obviously every fencer has different goals, and winning on the strip isn't always one of them. Plus, there's management, personality, etc to be considered.

I recently suggested granting FM certification to some of our top coaches to the USFCA executive committee (EC). The majority of the EC were against it. I also recently proposed an honorary FM title to an elderly life member who has performed great service to the US fencing community…this was also voted down in favor of some type of lifetime achievement award… this particular coach has already been honored by many organizations.

The USFCA also has an honorary membership (not honorary FM) which has been granted to some of these “rogue” coaches in the past. The hope was to bring them into the organization and perhaps get them to help us with coach development and promotion. They continued to ignore the USFCA…so it weakened my recent argument for honorary FMs. The argument that won the day went something like this…Why should we give them something for nothing?…when they have showed no interest in developing a system in this country …and risk the chance that they will continue to ignore the USFCA. Other coaches will then be encouraged to ignore the certification process in hopes for similar “performance based” credentialing. I have mentioned in the past it is difficult to quantify performance based credentials.

We would then need to develop rules to determine…

How many national champions does a coach need to produce? Olympics? World Cup finalists? National point holders? Div I, IA, II champions, Youth-12? Etc. It is possible. The Russians have done it. If you produce a national champion you are a Master Coach….Olympic Champion you are a Super Master…or something like that…and you get a lot of money!!!!

[erooMynohtnA]

These are some good points…and I think your right. This is how the system currently works for selecting a coach. But, wouldn’t having certification be an extra bonus factor for a coach?

I think titles and certificates are kickass, but right now they're the icing on the cake.

Some toxicologists are same way. There are two certifying bodies, and if you're going into the commercial side, you'll get certified by one or both. It literally pays to. However, academics mostly don't take the exams and are largely judged by the quality of their publications.

Do you think that fencers just don’t understand the certifications?

Yes. I think most fencers don't know what the requirements are to be a master, or what a master is. I think there are even fewer that know what a prevot or moniteur are, because those titles aren't commonly used.

Maybe it's less common in more densely populated areas of fencing, but there have been a few people in Wisconsin running around calling themselves masters. My first coach was one of them, and she lacked any credentials, qualifications, or basic coaching skills. How was I to know? I don't know what sanctions there are for someone claiming to be a master when they're not.

Your right, for referees the fencer doesn’t need to know the rating of the ref,,,that decision is made by the assigners. So the fencing public is making the decision on the coach …and know or care little about certification…most fencers and their parents are interested in results…and perhaps they know certified coaches and don’t like them. Maybe the only coaches interested in certification are the ones that nobody likes…this is a public relations problem for the USFCA…and CC.

I don't know about disliking certified coaches. I know some masters I think are a little conservative and out of touch with current practice, but they still have a large wealth of knowledge. I just think most coaches who don't seek certification don't because there's really no financial or skill incentive.

As others have stated, I think it would be useful for the USFCA to act as a training body in addition to certification. It probably wouldn't lure in the top coaches, but it would instill a desire to work with the USFCA in developing coaches. It would make the exams seem more like a fact of life rather than an extra and unimportant hurdle to coaching.

[Jason]

The argument that won the day went something like this…Why should we give them something for nothing?

What exactly would you be giving them? Any coach who ignores the USFCA would not possibly see an honorary membership (or honorary certification) as having any value. It's just a piece of paper from some weirdos. The idea that giving a coach certification or a membership will get him to be more involved is shockingly stupid. It is the coach who would be giving something for nothing. Until the USFCA has something of actual value to offer, disinterested coaches will remain disinterested.

[fencerX]

What exactly would you be giving them? Any coach who ignores the USFCA would not possibly see an honorary membership (or honorary certification) as having any value. It's just a piece of paper from some weirdos. The idea that giving a coach certification or a membership will get him to be more involved is shockingly stupid. It is the coach who would be giving something for nothing. Until the USFCA has something of actual value to offer, disinterested coaches will remain disinterested.

Simple disinterest might be a step up for the USFCA. Some coaches and fencers go out of their way to avoid any potential association with the USFCA or its adherents viewing it as anything from an out of touch bunch of weirdos all the way up to fencing's version of a kooky scientologist like cult.

[MdA]

…. out of touch bunch of weirdos….cult.

Korfanty, Kolombatovich, Kaidanov, Abachidze, Bednarski, Bradford, Glon, Micahnik, Richards, Salem, and Sebastiani recognize the value of an association run by coaches for the benefit of fencing coaches. Most are Olympians and current or future Hall of Famers.

The USFCA is no more a “cult” than the USFA or FIE.

Unfortunately, I think a lot of this sentiment comes from an American tendency to bash the elderly. I am not a senior citizen, but some of our current officers are retired coaches who volunteer to do the work that younger coaches won’t. They often travel on their own personal funds to support association activities.

The coaches and fencers that go out of their way to avoid the USFCA essentially band together in their own pseudo-association. They agree to disagree and that is OK with me. They also continue to encourage one another to avoid any formal peer review of their skill….real or imagined.

[MdA]

What exactly would you be giving them? …. Until the USFCA has something of actual value to offer, disinterested coaches will remain disinterested.

The USFCA provides services of which many coaches are unaware..

NCAA College Coaches poll

All American certificates at the NCAA Championships (72 per year)

Annual Coach of the Year Award

Swordmaster magazine

These programs support the fencers of many of these disinterested coaches. The money comes out of the membership dues and the work is done by volunteers to keep up these American fencing traditions...want your college fencers to get AA certificates in the future?

In addition to Job Listing on the website and assistance in finding coaching positions for members.

[Mr Epee]

Korfanty, Kolombatovich, Kaidanov, Abachidze, Bednarski, Bradford, Glon, Micahnik, Richards, Salem, and Sebastiani recognize the value of an association run by coaches for the benefit of fencing coaches. Most are Olympians and current or future Hall of Famers.

Notably quite a few of those folks are simply not the product of USFCA programs or instruction.

The USFCA is no more a “cult” than the USFA or FIE.

Uh... ok?

Unfortunately, I think a lot of this sentiment comes from an American tendency to bash the elderly. I am not a senior citizen, but some of our current officers are retired coaches who volunteer to do the work that younger coaches won’t. They often travel on their own personal funds to support association activities.

Time to crawl down off that cross. Bashing the elderly?

The coaches and fencers that go out of their way to avoid the USFCA essentially band together in their own pseudo-association. They agree to disagree and that is OK with me. They also continue to encourage one another to avoid any formal peer review of their skill….real or imagined.

Has the USFCA ever revoked anyone's certification?