UK FA and coaching philosophy

[MdA]

Jason…I think we had this discussion before. But, I can add that Jerry Benson has a program, Vinnie Bradford had a program….and other coach educators have programs. The point was made that nobody is doing anything for coaching education in the USA.

Personally, I think this is the area where more funding would be helpful…pulling together these individual efforts. I don’t think these coach educators will give it away for nothing. These programs are their personal property.

I don’t mean to put you off but perhaps you should contact Dr. Schiller.

[Jason]

Jason…I think we had this discussion before. But, I can add that Jerry Benson has a program, Vinnie Bradford had a program….and other coach educators have programs. The point was made that nobody is doing anything for coaching education in the USA.

Personally, I think this is the area where more funding would be helpful…pulling together these individual efforts. I don’t think these coach educators will give it away for nothing. These programs are their personal property.

I don’t mean to put you off but perhaps you should contact Dr. Schiller.

But those programs are private initiatives. They aren't really the product of the USFCA, right? So where would more funding be helpful? It sounds like, at best, the place funding would be able to best improve coaching education would be with these individual programs, not the USFCA. (Of course, if it's a private endeavor, I'd argue that the responsibility of amassing more funds lies entirely with the organizers.)

And that, I think, brings us back to Cville's point that funding for coaching education should go to "the one with the plan."

[MdA]

Right, you guys say no funding without a plan.....I say funding can be used to develop a plan.

I don't really know if the USFCA has a plan for education...I know they have infrastructure to support clinics. I have spoken to Abdel Salem (the President) and I know he has a vision for the eduction program....I just don't know if it is written down. I don't have a link for you.

That's why a suggested you contact Dr. Schiller. I don't really know what criteria he is using to approve USFCA clinics.

[Adler]

Right, you guys say no funding without a plan.....I say funding can be used to develop a plan.

I doubt any organisation would be willing to fund anything without knowing how the money is going to be used.
If the USFCA wants funding it would have a sound coach education development plan and be able to account for how the money is to be used first before applying.

Otherwise it boils down to:
USFCA: "We want money."
Funding manager:"and what will you do with it"
USFCA "Spend it!"

[prototoast]

Right, you guys say no funding without a plan.....I say funding can be used to develop a plan.

That's exactly the point. Right now, the USFCA is in no better a position to implement large scale training initiatives than anyone else. Add to that the fact that a lot of people (such as myself) believe that the USFCA is a worthless, full-of-**** organization whose primary purpose is to provide meaningless titles to their members to try to distinguish themselves to uninformed fencers shopping around for a coach.

[MdA]

That's exactly the point. Right now, the USFCA is in no better a position to implement large scale training initiatives than anyone else. Add to that the fact that a lot of people (such as myself) believe that the USFCA is a worthless, full-of-**** organization

This is where I respectfully disagree. The USFCA is the only organization established by fencing coaches for fencing coaches in the USA. It is independent of USA Fencing, which at this particular time is a very good thing.

I have my differences with the USFCA, just like a lot of fencing coaches...a lot of it is personality driven. But, I think it has the potential to do more good things for coaches.

[oiuyt]

Is it fair to credit the USFCA with clinics which are private initiatives that are just carrying a USFCA stamp? Is there any quality control on the part of the USFCA? What is the difference between a "USFCA clinic" and an unaffiliated coaching clinic?

Jason,

I attended the Czajkowski-taught clinic that you helped organize in New York City a few years ago. It was officially listed as a USFCA clinic. I still have a certificate with the USFCA logo printed on it sitting around somewhere in my house.

To what extent was that clinic planned by the USFCA? What quality control was put in place? What made it different than a highly-similar hypothetical Czajokowski-taught clinic without USFCA imprimateur?

As one of the organizers of the clinic, what prompted you to have it officially recognized by the USFCA? What, if any, drawbacks and benefits resulted from that decision?

-B

[Jason]

Jason,

I attended the Czajkowski-taught clinic that you helped organize in New York City a few years ago. It was officially listed as a USFCA clinic. I still have a certificate with the USFCA logo printed on it sitting around somewhere in my house.

To what extent was that clinic planned by the USFCA? What quality control was put in place? What made it different than a highly-similar hypothetical Czajokowski-taught clinic without USFCA imprimateur?

As one of the organizers of the clinic, what prompted you to have it officially recognized by the USFCA? What, if any, drawbacks and benefits resulted from that decision?

-B

The details of the clinic were already finalized when Arnold Mercado and I started discussing how to involve the USFCA. USFCA affiliation was attached in exchange for some amount of advertising on their part. The USFCA had no influence over the quality, content, timing, or style of the clinic. They did provide the certificates for attendees.

Since there were a lot of costs involved with the clinic, when the USFCA came to us and asked to have their name attached to the event, it seemed like a good way to spread the word about the event cheaply. Though I don't quite remember the breakdown, I believe several of the attendees heard about the event through the USFCA, so as an advertising resource it was certainly worthwhile. Arnold Mercado was very helpful in getting the word out.

It seems like that is the USFCA's current approach to coaching education--help advertise what other people are doing. That might actually be the best role for it to play. Of course, there should be no confusing that with an educational program.

[Jason]

I still have a certificate with the USFCA logo printed on it sitting around somewhere in my house.

By "sitting around", I assume you mean "framed on a wall, under display lights."

[VorpalCat]

It seems like that is the USFCA's current approach to coaching education--help advertise what other people are doing. That might actually be the best role for it to play. Of course, there should be no confusing that with an educational program.

I'll buy that.

[oso97]

But those programs are private initiatives. They aren't really the product of the USFCA, right? So where would more funding be helpful? It sounds like, at best, the place funding would be able to best improve coaching education would be with these individual programs, not the USFCA. (Of course, if it's a private endeavor, I'd argue that the responsibility of amassing more funds lies entirely with the organizers.)

And that, I think, brings us back to Cville's point that funding for coaching education should go to "the one with the plan."

As someone whose actually participated in a couple of the clinics in OKC, I think I can provide a bit more clarity about what they are and what they are not. The curriculum was not developed solely by Jerry Benson - he had input into it, certainly, but that was because of his position on the CAB. The curriculum was developed, and approved, by the entire CAB. Its supposed to be a standardized curriculum, that can be used by different people running different clinics. There is also a pretty good feedback session at the end of each clinic to see where it can be improved (I'm assuming, based upon conversations, that this feedback will be used to improve the curriculum overall in some sort of formal or semi-formal review and improvement process by the CAB). As to who can host it, I believe there are specific standards, including, being a certified Master, and having gone through some sort of training (again, I'm assuming, based upon conversations, that the people who developed it are considered "trained" and they'll work on training others in the process later). In that context, its similar to the new accreditation standards for being able to sit on a certification board, and the USFCA is taking a lot of steps to standardize that process, including specific, required, clinics one must attend in order to be on a certification board, and a system whereby one has to serve as an assistant on a board first, and work up to being a chair of a board, at the various different levels.

Its not a national training system, yet, but it certainly is the nucleus of one, with many of the steps that have been laid out in this discussion. I do know the CAB spent significant time developing the curriculum, and went through a number of rounds of it, with many of the types of internal questions that have been asked here. I can't speak to what their specific answers are, and as a consumer of the clinics, I really don't care . I do know that they serve my professional development goals at this time. And had I not gotten pneumonia at Thanksgiving (accompanied by an 8 day hospital stay), I would have been at the one at Halberstat, but I am still not quite up to that level of traveling and exertion!

That being said, I don't think its necessary for each clinic to be identical in presentation. Think of your college experience - 10 different sections of Biology 101, all teaching from a common curriculum, with room for personal tidbits added by the instructors. Some instructors end up being more "popular" than others, due to specific timeslots scheduled, personal charisma, ability to teach effectively, etc. Similar situation here.

[Jason]

The curriculum was not developed solely by Jerry Benson - he had input into it, certainly, but that was because of his position on the CAB. The curriculum was developed, and approved, by the entire CAB. Its supposed to be a standardized curriculum, that can be used by different people running different clinics.

That's very interesting and something new from USFCA. If it's true that the clinics are now working from a standardized curriculum, I think they should publicize that fact. It suggests some bold changes on their part.

Can you fill us in on what is contained in that curriculum?

[oso97]

The Master's I clinic (There are 4), consisted of material regarding the creation of the Master's Thesis. Topics of discussion included what kinds of topics would be appropriate, how the whole "process" is supposed to go, and a number of different discussions. Jerry commented that since the particular group that was assembled that time consisted entirely of people with extensive experience in academia, and all of us have actually written an academic thesis before, he modified some of the material (for example, he didn't need to spend time explaining about how to appropriately cite previous work, or the need to do such research in the first place...).

This is in addition to the Saturday session which consisted of working with different students on different actions, with feedback both from Jerry and peer commentary. I for example was working on some actions for the Teaching Lesson component of my Master's exam. There was also video taken of the lessons we were working on. This was the second of the Saturday sessions I'd attended (I'd driven up for one of the one's prior to a Prevot clinic). I also have a list of specific actions that I'm going to ask Jerry for feedback in working on next time.

The next session is going to be in late February. Simply doing a cut and paste from the FRED listing...

ATIONAL TRAINING PROGRAM clinic for Masters II. Schedule will be Saturday 1:00-5:00 pm supervised and video taped practice lessons; Sunday 9:00 am-4:15 pm accredited clinic. Cost: Sat practice $50; Sun seminar $150; both $175

Contact Jerry at 405-418-4014 or jerry@redlandsfencing.com.

Preregistration opens on 08/26/2010.
Preregistration closes on 02/25/2011.

NATIONAL TRAINING PROGRAM: Clinic for Masters II
February 27, 2011
9:00 am to 4:15 pm

1. Level: Maitres d'Armes are expected to be able to perform all of the duties of running a club, salle, or team, to supervise assistants, to design training programs, to coach fencers at the highest level, to conduct independent research in the sport, and to train new coaches.

2. Purpose: To provide candidate Maitre d'Armes an overview of additional coaching knowledge and structured practice of Training Lesson as an individual lesson.

3. Desired Students: Fencers age 23 and up with a minimum of five years of fencing experience. Ideally students should be recommended by a professional coach as having the potential to serve as professional coaches in the sport. Prior experience as a Moniteur and Prevot is desirable. Completion of Clinic #1 is desirable, although the four Maitre d'Armes clinics can be completed in any order.

4. Curriculum:
0900-1000: Fencing statistics (lecture and demonstration performance)
* What we know about performance
* Gatherine Data
* Using and designing data analysis methods

1000-1100: Design of the annual training program (lecture and demonstration performance)
* Periodization of training
* Selection of competitions
* Relationship of training cycles to previous and next year

1100-1200: Sports psychology (lecture and guided discussion)
* Psychological preparation of the athlete
* Use of the period between halt and fence
* Strip coaching

1200-1300: Working Lunch
* Review of coaching career plan
* Student initiated discussion topics (students will be assigned to bring discussion topics for short 15 minute discussions)

1300-1600: Individual guided review and practice of the Training Lesson (demonstration-performance)

1600-1615: Course conclusion
* Quick review of key learning points
* Questions from the students
* Student Evaluation
* Presentation of course certificates

[Jason]

The Master's I clinic (There are 4), consisted of material regarding the creation of the Master's Thesis.

So these 4 Masters clinics are designed by the USFCA as part of an educational program that various trained coaches will (at least in theory) be leading at different places and times around the country?

Is the breakdown of "Masters II" an example of this new standardized USFCA product? If things go according to plan, should we expect to see other "Masters II" courses (for example) with the same outline appearing in other places, run by other USFCA fencing masters?

[oso97]

So these 4 Masters clinics are designed by the USFCA as part of an educational program that various trained coaches will (at least in theory) be leading at different places and times around the country?

Is the breakdown of "Masters II" an example of this new standardized USFCA product? If things go according to plan, should we expect to see other "Masters II" courses (for example) with the same outline appearing in other places, run by other USFCA fencing masters?

From what I understand - yes. I know the one in San Francisco at Halberstat was going to include material from the Moniteur and Prevot levels.

[oiuyt]

So these 4 Masters clinics are designed by the USFCA as part of an educational program that various trained coaches will (at least in theory) be leading at different places and times around the country?

Is the breakdown of "Masters II" an example of this new standardized USFCA product? If things go according to plan, should we expect to see other "Masters II" courses (for example) with the same outline appearing in other places, run by other USFCA fencing masters?

From what I understand - yes. I know the one in San Francisco at Halberstat was going to include material from the Moniteur and Prevot levels.

From the Halberstad clinic information page:

Our primary goal is to improve the coach’s ability to give a lesson for any level student. To achieve that goal, we will assign specific lessons for Friday evening, and will video tape the coaches. After the lesson is completed, we will individually review the video, and determine any areas that need improvement. We will then work in groups, according to the coach’s skill level, to further develop each coach’s strengths. We will follow the proposed National Training program Moniteur 1 and 2 and Prévôt 1 and 2 levels that are currently being developed by the USFCA.

As indicated by oso, it seems to be indicating following a standard curriculum (under development). The clinics in Oklahoma cover prevot 1-4 and master 1-4.

It seems fairly easy to assemble at least the outline of the curriculum being used in Oklahoma simply by extracting the schedule from each of the four clinics offered at each level. I don't know whether or not the USFCA has published such an outline. I haven't looked carefully at how much information is currently available.

-B