FMR Coaching Courses relevance

I know we have discussed this before, but there is some new info out there recently that I've been alerted to by our club secretary.

Here's the press release.
http://www.uka.org.uk/media/news/may...ach-education/
It seems we have some free courses available but only for coaches who are already at a certain level. I'm not too concerned with this as we all pay for it one way or another, but I do applaud the move to some form of online education and only 1 day at course.

Here's a video overview, which I haven't looked at properly yet.
http://coaching.uka.org.uk/video/coa...date-may-2012/

FAQs
http://coaching.uka.org.uk/qualifica...-award/egc-faq

and here is where the FMR seems to be regarded as irrelevant.

Scroll down to "Who is Eligible to take this qualification"

Eligible - Level 2 Endurance (That's me :thumbup:)

Not eligible - Level 2 Fell & Mountain Running, Level 3 Fell & Hill, Level 4 Fell & Hill :thunbdown:

As someone who went on the FMR2 a few years ago and left after weekend 1 as it was almost identical to the level 2 endurance I had already done, I am amazed that they do not see this as on the same level as Level 2 endurance.
I can't speak from experience for the level 3 & 4 qualifications, but I would hazard a guess that they are much more in depth and therefore it is even more astounding that it isn't deemed credible as a stepping stone to move to these new qualifications.

I wonder then how the FRA views this. Many coaches / clubs have taken up these qualifications until quite recently. These were certainly perceived as being relevant and part of the UKA coach development system, but now are deemed insignificant.

I hadn't read the small print, thanks for pointing it out.

Aren't they mainly referring to those going on to coach specific event groups, for example jumps, and eventually one event, say, long jump? It is not clear why an endurance qualification is appropriate in this context yet a FMR qualification at the same level is not, but it is not going to affect many. Having said that, it does not seem at all logical.

I've had a think about it..

1. Firstly, the paragraph
   
   Quote:

   ---

   No, providing you are at least a level 2 qualified coach in anything apart from ‘Children in Athletics’ you can start at the ‘Event Group’ qualification. [..]

   ---

   in the FAQ is extremely unhelpful, when it then turns out not to include the FMR2 qualification. (this is as far as I read before Richard mentioned the problem)
   
2. Secondly, a lot of coaches would be likely to look at the sprints training as sprints are very important to juniors' development.
   
3. Thirdly, if we are barred from this then will we also be barred from the level 3 progression when this is available?
   
4. Fourthly, the cost of the FMR2 course was doubled at UKA's insistence, for reasons no-one else could comprehend, as part of keeping it within the UKA framework. Maybe UKA would like to reimburse coaches the difference (or the entire fee), if it now turns out some of us will have to pay again, to go on a near-identical course to get back into the framework.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LissaJous

I've had a think about it..

1. Firstly, the paragraph
   
   in the FAQ is extremely unhelpful, when it then turns out not to include the FMR2 qualification. (this is as far as I read before Richard mentioned the problem)
   
2. Secondly, a lot of coaches would be likely to look at the sprints training as sprints are very important to juniors' development.
   
3. Thirdly, if we are barred from this then will we also be barred from the level 3 progression when this is available?
   
4. Fourthly, the cost of the FMR2 course was doubled at UKA's insistence, for reasons no-one else could comprehend, as part of keeping it within the UKA framework. Maybe UKA would like to reimburse coaches the difference (or the entire fee), if it now turns out some of us will have to pay again, to go on a near-identical course to get back into the framework.

---

http://coaching.uka.org.uk/qualifica...p-coach-award/

Here it further explains.

It seems that those who have the FMR2 or above SHOULD be the type of coaches that UKA want to take the Endurance element of this course, so why are they ruled out.

Point 4 is the biggy for me Lauren. I was one of the "Guinea Pigs" for a previous coaching pathway that isn't relevant and my club paid for me to attend - I'm sure others are similar.
What about those that have until April invested in coaching courses and now they see this?

Come on Witton.. For a start.. the forum isn't the place for this.. but also neither is emailing the relevant people.. I'm still awaiting a response..

I love the differing approaches of the UKA/FRA system compared to the MLTB's... surveys of end users.. frequent dialogue.. things aren't perfect.. but they are fluid and changing.. of you can keep a currently broken system and just add on.. you can't polish a turd..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IainR

Come on Witton.. For a start.. the forum isn't the place for this.. but also neither is emailing the relevant people.. I'm still awaiting a response..

I love the differing approaches of the UKA/FRA system compared to the MLTB's... surveys of end users.. frequent dialogue.. things aren't perfect.. but they are fluid and changing.. of you can keep a currently broken system and just add on.. you can't polish a turd..

---

It puzzles me that you don't think the forum is the place for this. We have a number of existing coaches, budding coaches, club officials that make decisions on funding these training programmes and FRA people such as junior co-ordinator and coaching co-ordinator who frequent the forum.

Some may not want to engage in dialogue here, but at least they can read and see the discussion develop.

That would seem to me to be a good way of raising awareness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Witton Park

Some may not want to engage in dialogue here, but at least they can read and see the discussion develop.

That would seem to me to be a good way of raising awareness.

---

The Forum can contain reasoned discussion, check out the junior threads on young athlete development and participation in races, excellent throughout. So i'd argue the forum can be the place, continue please.

As someone who is about to undertake my FRA coaching qualifications this year (booked and paid for) I wouldn't have been aware of this without the forum. Thanks WP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Witton Park

It puzzles me that you don't think the forum is the place for this. We have a number of existing coaches, budding coaches, club officials that make decisions on funding these training programmes and FRA people such as junior co-ordinator and coaching co-ordinator who frequent the forum.

Some may not want to engage in dialogue here, but at least they can read and see the discussion develop.

That would seem to me to be a good way of raising awareness.

---

I'm joking.. its the standard response from the FRA.. aka Graham.. or the Grump..

Of course this is exactly what the forum is for and should be used for and should be read by the relevant people...

I was told the forum wasn't the place for this.. so emailed the relevant committee member not to get a response...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IainR

I'm joking.. its the standard response from the FRA.. aka Graham.. or the Grump..

Of course this is exactly what the forum is for and should be used for and should be read by the relevant people...

I was told the forum wasn't the place for this.. so emailed the relevant committee member not to get a response...

---

I wasn't sure, but a :D or a :rolleyes: perhaps might have guided me to the correct interpretation :confused:

I am hoping that the FRA coaching coordinator has already opened discussion with UKA/English athletics over this and that those with the Level 2 Fell and Mountain will be able to access these free coaching resources in the near future to add to their coaching development. As has already been said on this thread many coaches would benefit from doing the endurance and sprint modules.

Perhaps a more radical solution is that the FRA course is changed to the Endurance coach one with the extra theory for fellrunning being put online and the extra day being a practical workshop run alongside the junior development squad sessions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gazmuz

Perhaps a more radical solution is that the FRA course is changed to the Endurance coach one with the extra theory for fellrunning being put online and the extra day being a practical workshop run alongside the junior development squad sessions.

---

I would agree with that.
It's not that radical as the FMR2 course that I attended a few years ago was in effect the old Level 2 core and Endurance merged in to one course with perhaps 10 - 20% being more fell specific.

It perhaps always should have been the UKA endurance course with the FRA arranging bolt on Fell Specific units to be attained at level 2, 3 & 4 as a coach wants to progress.

In fact that is exactly what I thought I was signing up to - a level 2 Fell module.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Witton Park

I would agree with that.
It's not that radical as the FMR2 course that I attended a few years ago was in effect the old Level 2 core and Endurance merged in to one course with perhaps 10 - 20% being more fell specific.

It perhaps always should have been the UKA endurance course with the FRA arranging bolt on Fell Specific units to be attained at level 2, 3 & 4 as a coach wants to progress.

In fact that is exactly what I thought I was signing up to - a level 2 Fell module.

---

I'm not sure there is really any need for fell coaching.. just some slight tweaks to a standard programme, but look at guys like road runner, or Tim Davies.. their training programme is pretty much miles and miles and comparable to road runners.. which road runner is.. but Tim or Andy Davies wouldn't do that much which is different..

Coaching in this country, in most sports is very poorly viewed and supported. The problem is too many of the quails are just box ticking exercises by the relevant bodies.. and not detailed enough or long enough to be of any real benefit.. Look at the FA coaching system compared to Europe..

In support of the training provided by the coaching team at the FRA and the courses and training now available; last night I observed at a fell coaching session over 60 young people being fully engaged by a team of coaches and helpers who were clearly demonstrating the knowledge and skills that they have learnt on the FRA level 2 and the Coaching in Running Fitness courses. The experience provided had significantly moved on from a year ago. The young people all had a smile on their face, were working really hard and were inspired by the games, reps that they were taking part in. The FRA courses are invaluable, for those who wish to introduce young people to fell running, but those who have a desire should be encouraged and be able to access all UKA coaching resources.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IainR

I'm not sure there is really any need for fell coaching.. just some slight tweaks to a standard programme, but look at guys like road runner, or Tim Davies.. their training programme is pretty much miles and miles and comparable to road runners.. which road runner is.. but Tim or Andy Davies wouldn't do that much which is different..

Coaching in this country, in most sports is very poorly viewed and supported. The problem is too many of the quails are just box ticking exercises by the relevant bodies.. and not detailed enough or long enough to be of any real benefit.. Look at the FA coaching system compared to Europe..

---

And ask Andi what is his weakness and he'll tell you he struggles to descend. He was challenged at Snowdon last year because of that and he even struggled at the World Trials at Witton Park with the steps part of the descent which probably cost him 1st place.

Those endurance runners of all ages that come from Road, XC and track for the international trials or Inter Counties, often very high class, tend to struggle with descending and as a coach I would be grateful for more advise on how to coach someone to descend without risk of repetitive ankle turns etc.

Of course that doesn't mean a course necessarily, but you acknowledge the merits of accreditation so much that I would have thought you would have slightly more regard for the efforts to have coaching accreditation in our sport.

I do, I just have seen soccer coaching ruined by loads of people having 1-2 day courses and basically called coaches.. yet poorly qualified.. lack of drills.. lack of variability...

I think the need for quick 'qualifications' is a dangerous choice.. I know Sarah went on the course and never completed as she thought it was incredibly basic and uninformative.

So who coached Andy? TBH I don't think we are in a position where we know what good training is yet.. Get the top 20 in the english champs to write down their weekly training and I doubt you'll see much consensus..

I think we'd be better off training kids like Menai Track and field do, on the track, with fun sessions, little pressure, enjoyable. We know far more about how to train for mainstream athletics. And Menai has produced its fair share of top fell runners from that system.

Thanks for the heads up WP, didnt realise this & its disappointing (& a bit odd) to hear. Will follow up with coaching coordinator. It was Gazmuz who mentioned this to me last night at training, where as he said lots of children getting uphill & downhill technique input intergrated into the various endrance sessions they were doing from coaches trained on the FRA courses (1 & 2).

I've done both those courses & found them hugely helpful, from both an endurance perspective and specific fell work, exactly what I & the coaches at my club need to develop young fell runners. So I do feel they work, doing exactly what they say on the tin.

No idea re UKA or where that edict came from, but doesnt seem right or fair. As I say, will follow up as much as I can & see what the crack is.

I asked UKA / EA for clarification some weeks ago and haven't received a comprehensive reply as to the reasons behind this. I can't open some of the publicity material but my interpretation, backed up by communication with EA, is that the free courses are open to those who have done, or are doing, the new T&F courses. They are not available to anyone who has done a previous L1 or Endurance L2 or those who have done, or are doing, a recent CiRF. BUT they are available to those who did do a L3 when they were available ( I've asked whether this includes L3 Endurance or Fell but no specific answer ). So they are basically blocking any Endurance or Fell coaches unless they completed a L3 or 4 which will restrict the numbers drastically. The only reasoning I have been given is that the Endurance / Fell courses did not contain some content which the previous T&F did have and new Event ( Triple Jump etc ) do have, don't know what this is.

I don't understand this as the bulk of UKA coaches have Endurance qualifications, others suspect its a cost issue.

Richard's opening comment / question about the irrelevance of the Fell coaching courses is inaccurate, I can confirm :

- UKA fully support the Fell LiRF and FMR programmes and see them as relevant, they still count and a programme of 3 Fell LiRF and 1 FMR Coach courses are being rolled out in 2012 with the same in 2013.
- UKA / EA have been in discussions with the FRA over reveiw and updating of the FMR Coach and this is planned for the summer of 2012 with delivery in the next course in the Autumn.
- UKA / EA are OK with the content, in fact if you look at the activities and resources in the recently released CiRF courses you'll see some has been lifted straight from the FMR which is a compliment in itself.
- The FMR has never been advertised as bolt on, its always been a stand alone coaching qualification.

I agree with Lauren's points about Sprints and have taken note of Richard's request for a bolt on course about uphill / downhill - in fact, this has already been discussed in outline with UKA / EA as the coverage of this in the UKA CiRF is light - part of the proposed UKA coaching system being developed is bolt on courses for people who have the Coach qualification to undertake modules for horizontal CPD. I wouldn't mind guessing that this is part of the reason behind the blocking discussed above - I think they've done T&F first as its their priority and specialism for most at a high level in UKA and will move onto the various forms of Endurance later on after the Olympics - thats my personal thoughts though.

Further to Richard's point about the FMR course being the old L2 with 10-20% Fell - inaccurate. The FMR course was developed from the UKA UKCC pilot for Endurance which was pitched at between L2 & L3, it does share some of the same activities on course and in the logbook because they are relevant. Richard did not attend, as he says, the 2nd weekend and so missed much of the fell specific content. In addition, the FMR Coach is a 4 day course compared to 3 days on the current UKA alternative, the CiRF, which is to accomodate the extra fell related content and skills.

Iain's points :

-the reference to the course being 'basic' is not bourne out by the views of the delivery team, UKA / EA and coaches who have attended the FMR but also have done the old L2 - they all agree that it is at a higher level.
- the inference to the courses not being developed after consultation with attendees has no basis at all, the course now is vastly different to the origonal in many respects.
- his questioning of the need for fells coaching reveals his ignorance of the course content and skills and is not evidenced by the demand for the courses, the excellent reviews it recieves from people who attend or the origonal reasons why they were set up - because the existing UKA courses did not meet the needs of the fell running community. UKA is struggling to fill LiRF and CiRF courses, the FRA courses have never been cancelled and always fill up quick - in fact, the tutor team reckons there are usually too many on them for comfort.
-If his evidence base for the above comes from the comments of Sarah, one of only 3 people from 42 who have started the course and completed both weekends, I suggest he needs to ask around a bit more before committing himself to such comments on a public forum.
- the comments about MTLB refer to his complaint elsewhere on the forum that the Fell LiRF in 1 day gives the same insurance cover as many more he had to do with the MLTB, as I replied in the email to him - I don't have a problem with UKA's insurers covering us for that. If that gives him a problem with added competition to his business then that's his problem, the FRA are just ensuring that fell coaches are covered.

Welcome to the forum Gra. I am sure you will love it on here. Mizuno WH or Inov8 then?:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gra

Iain's points :

-the reference to the course being 'basic' is not bourne out by the views of the delivery team, UKA / EA and coaches who have attended the FMR but also have done the old L2 - they all agree that it is at a higher level.
- the inference to the courses not being developed after consultation with attendees has no basis at all, the course now is vastly different to the origonal in many respects.
- his questioning of the need for fells coaching reveals his ignorance of the course content and skills and is not evidenced by the demand for the courses, the excellent reviews it recieves from people who attend or the origonal reasons why they were set up - because the existing UKA courses did not meet the needs of the fell running community. UKA is struggling to fill LiRF and CiRF courses, the FRA courses have never been cancelled and always fill up quick - in fact, the tutor team reckons there are usually too many on them for comfort.
-If his evidence base for the above comes from the comments of Sarah, one of only 3 people from 42 who have started the course and completed both weekends, I suggest he needs to ask around a bit more before committing himself to such comments on a public forum.
- the comments about MTLB refer to his complaint elsewhere on the forum that the Fell LiRF in 1 day gives the same insurance cover as many more he had to do with the MLTB, as I replied in the email to him - I don't have a problem with UKA's insurers covering us for that. If that gives him a problem with added competition to his business then that's his problem, the FRA are just ensuring that fell coaches are covered.

---

1. Why ask around.. if that's someone's view it is valid. Its a public forum.. therefore comments are free to be made..
2. So now they are FRA courses.. I thought they were UKA courses.. come on make your mind up..
3. Which email to me?
4. Competition.. I suggest you speak with others I've encouraged to set up businesses.. Dave Taylor for 1... There's plenty of growth in the field yet. I have another email off someone asking about setting up elsewhere and I provided advice and encouragement. I have concerns about people listing these qualifications as guiding qualifications... as is happening.
5. I have genuine concerns that fell running is entering a dangerous phase, winter gear is opening up terrain I don't think many have the skills to cope with and I've seriously worried that there is a huge lack of remit to the course..
6. I don't think the FRA course gives anything like the same level of protection that the MLTB system does. If you think so you are grossly ignorant of the MLTB system and its insurance.
7. Try just responding not with those little gripes about competition. Its just childish.. but I am not surprised..
8. Genuinely surprised that you think the course does allow people to lead runs.. not just fell specific training sessions.. The defence of it was always that it was just a strange choice of name but wasn't for 'guiding' groups running.. but you are now saying.. in text... that's exactly what it is for.. brave call by you. Think that's born out of stubborness.. as should a fatality happen on such a run the 'qualification' will be seriously questioned...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gra

I asked UKA / EA for clarification some weeks ago and haven't received a comprehensive reply as to the reasons behind this. I can't open some of the publicity material but my interpretation, backed up by communication with EA, is that the free courses are open to those who have done, or are doing, the new T&F courses. They are not available to anyone who has done a previous L1 or Endurance L2 or those who have done, or are doing, a recent CiRF. BUT they are available to those who did do a L3 when they were available ( I've asked whether this includes L3 Endurance or Fell but no specific answer ). So they are basically blocking any Endurance or Fell coaches unless they completed a L3 or 4 which will restrict the numbers drastically. The only reasoning I have been given is that the Endurance / Fell courses did not contain some content which the previous T&F did have and new Event ( Triple Jump etc ) do have, don't know what this is.

I don't understand this as the bulk of UKA coaches have Endurance qualifications, others suspect its a cost issue.

Richard's opening comment / question about the irrelevance of the Fell coaching courses is inaccurate, I can confirm :

- UKA fully support the Fell LiRF and FMR programmes and see them as relevant, they still count and a programme of 3 Fell LiRF and 1 FMR Coach courses are being rolled out in 2012 with the same in 2013.
- UKA / EA have been in discussions with the FRA over reveiw and updating of the FMR Coach and this is planned for the summer of 2012 with delivery in the next course in the Autumn.
- UKA / EA are OK with the content, in fact if you look at the activities and resources in the recently released CiRF courses you'll see some has been lifted straight from the FMR which is a compliment in itself.
- The FMR has never been advertised as bolt on, its always been a stand alone coaching qualification.

I agree with Lauren's points about Sprints and have taken note of Richard's request for a bolt on course about uphill / downhill - in fact, this has already been discussed in outline with UKA / EA as the coverage of this in the UKA CiRF is light - part of the proposed UKA coaching system being developed is bolt on courses for people who have the Coach qualification to undertake modules for horizontal CPD. I wouldn't mind guessing that this is part of the reason behind the blocking discussed above - I think they've done T&F first as its their priority and specialism for most at a high level in UKA and will move onto the various forms of Endurance later on after the Olympics - thats my personal thoughts though.

Further to Richard's point about the FMR course being the old L2 with 10-20% Fell - inaccurate. The FMR course was developed from the UKA UKCC pilot for Endurance which was pitched at between L2 & L3, it does share some of the same activities on course and in the logbook because they are relevant. Richard did not attend, as he says, the 2nd weekend and so missed much of the fell specific content. In addition, the FMR Coach is a 4 day course compared to 3 days on the current UKA alternative, the CiRF, which is to accomodate the extra fell related content and skills.

Iain's points :

-the reference to the course being 'basic' is not bourne out by the views of the delivery team, UKA / EA and coaches who have attended the FMR but also have done the old L2 - they all agree that it is at a higher level.
- the inference to the courses not being developed after consultation with attendees has no basis at all, the course now is vastly different to the origonal in many respects.
- his questioning of the need for fells coaching reveals his ignorance of the course content and skills and is not evidenced by the demand for the courses, the excellent reviews it recieves from people who attend or the origonal reasons why they were set up - because the existing UKA courses did not meet the needs of the fell running community. UKA is struggling to fill LiRF and CiRF courses, the FRA courses have never been cancelled and always fill up quick - in fact, the tutor team reckons there are usually too many on them for comfort.
-If his evidence base for the above comes from the comments of Sarah, one of only 3 people from 42 who have started the course and completed both weekends, I suggest he needs to ask around a bit more before committing himself to such comments on a public forum.
- the comments about MTLB refer to his complaint elsewhere on the forum that the Fell LiRF in 1 day gives the same insurance cover as many more he had to do with the MLTB, as I replied in the email to him - I don't have a problem with UKA's insurers covering us for that. If that gives him a problem with added competition to his business then that's his problem, the FRA are just ensuring that fell coaches are covered.

---

I'll keep this short as I can.

Surely it should be of some concern when the FRA Coaching Co-ordinator has poor lines of communication with EA/UKA. I would hope that the FRA would back Graeme to ensure that he is kept fully involved in the process.

These free courses ARE available to holders of Level 2 Endurance as I outlined in my original post and as is explained on the link on the EA website.

They are NOT available to anyone who has done any of the Fell courses - even up to the level 4.

So the "interpretations" you have made seem to be inaccurate OR EA/UKA has published incorrect info on their website.

So if all other level 2, 3 and 4 courses including Endurance give you access to these free courses and the Fell level 2, 3 & 4 don't then clearly the Fell courses are seen as the poor relation.

So I stand by hat I posted - if fell courses don't bestow eligibility there has to be a question mark over the relevance that UKA/EA attach to these courses. That doesn't mean they are irrelevant in the fell running world of course.

Ref the FMR 2 that I attended in 2008 and my assertion that it was the old endurance with 10-20% fell specific.

I absolutely stand by this and in fact that is bourne out by the exchanges at the time with Lecky, Graeme and Jeremy Harries. The pre-course material that was issued and the on course material was the same material I had received in my endurance course and I still have both here.

The explanation I had was that the new UKCC course differed from the old level 2 core + technical by "weaving" the technical information in to the core and producing a more continual flow of fell relevant information and instruction.

I would describe it as a Feng Shui of the old course.

The comment that I missed much of the fell specific content as it was on the second weekend, undermines the explanations I was given at the time that the whole course would be fell specific. You seem to be now saying that the second weekend was the more technical part and that is the reason I make this 10-20% assertion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gra

- The FMR has never been advertised as bolt on, its always been a stand alone coaching qualification.

---

At the time the course was advertised in Fell Runner magazine, there was only the bolt on system available to coaches. I registered my interest in attending around 12 months before the course was held.

So anyone involved in coaching would expect that this was a fell specific course attached to the core.

It was only when the paperwork came through on the 9th Jan for the course starting on 18th Jan that I began to realise that this was in fact the core + technical all in one course and queried this, to be advised it was a pilot UKCC course.

So it may not have been advertise as a bolt on, but it was never advertised as a stand alone and so anyone would rightfully expect that it was a bolt on.

I really don't ant to pick a fight with Graeme on this - my experience of the FMR2 course back in Jan 2008 was that it was the same information as the UKA 2 Core + endurance and I think I was the only level 2 UKA coach there.
In fact many had not even done a level 1.

But that's my personal perception based on my experience. People may disagree, but this isn't really the point I want developing as it's old news.

The point that really matters is that Level 2 endurance can access these free resources for the next 12 months but Fell 2, 3 and 4 cannot.

This should be taken up by the FRA immediately as the 12 months is already counting down and there is no logic or reason behind it.

I do hope this thread doesn't descend into personal battles because this is a subject worthy of discussion and provides interesting insight for people such as myself.

I thought it worth giving my viewpoint, as someone who has attended both Summer ML training and the LiFR course in the last couple of months, and is planning to attend the FMR course later in the year.

I regard myself as being pretty experienced in the hills, both as a runner (in more recent times) and as a walker (over many years). I can navigate myself, make sensible decisions, carry the right kit and, in the main, feel I can look after myself barring accidents etc. As a runner, I've done my fair share of club sessions etc and, being the type of individual I am, I've also taken a keen interest in the whys and wherefores of training.

What both the Summer ML and the LiRF have taught me is an entirely different skill....that of leadership. It's one thing to be confident in your own ability but a completely different thing to be able to motivate, encourage and lead others. The Summer ML taught me plenty about that. But I have to say that I also learnt an awful lot from Graeme and Steve on the LiRF course as well, particularly with regard to encouraging and motivating new runners on the hills, something I'm passionate about.

I see the CiRF course as an extension of that, in terms of being able to lead fun, relevant training sessions which can inspire, motivate and train individuals to become better runners. I think it is relevant to have a specific hillrunning course, which can look at the different demands placed on us on the fells. Obviously, having not been on the course yet, I can't comment on how specifically the course will deal with these issues.

Having experienced both ML and LiFR now, where I completely agree with IainR is that I wouldn't regard the LiRF (or, I'm guessing, the CiRF) as being of sufficient level to allow me to lead groups into high mountain terrain and feel adequately qualified to do so. And, to be fair, that was never suggested on the LiFR course but, I believe that by the very nature and name of the course, and the fact you get UKA insurance, there is an implied suggestion that you are qualified to do so. That could be storing up a problem for the future because, as Iain suggests, if something bad does happen on the high fells, the courts would pull apart the qualification and expose it as being inadequate.

I partly wonder if the problems here arise from both a lack of understanding of fellrunning on the part of UKA and also the fact that, whilst I would probably regard the LiRF as perfectly adequate for leading a group of runners on a trot across the South Pennine moors or the Shropshire hills(for example!), it's not, on its own, adequate for leading runners into the high Lakeland fells, the major tops of Snowdonia or the wilds of Scotland.

Finally, just for balance, I've found Graeme to be an extremely encouraging person who delivers fantastic courses with great knowledge AND I've found IainR to be very knowledgeable and generous in offering advice and help. Peace and love!

I'm also confused by what is happening. Like WP I am an old level 2 endurance coach (and by the way triple jump was covered in the generic morning session!). I actually coach a squad of 10 to 14 year olds in all disciplines both on and off track including fell running.

Does my current coaching licence cover these activities and what development path do I take?

UKA and England Athletics have confirmed that all coaches with pre existing coaching qualifications at L2 or Coach ie. FMR, CiRF can access the new modules for free EXCEPT those who did the L2 Children In Athletics.
Wycoller - I would check the Triple Jump with England Athletics as i think this would have been just a learning activity to develop an ability like coordination.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wycoller

I'm also confused by what is happening. Like WP I am an old level 2 endurance coach (and by the way triple jump was covered in the generic morning session!). I actually coach a squad of 10 to 14 year olds in all disciplines both on and off track including fell running.

Does my current coaching licence cover these activities and what development path do I take?

---

I did TJ and Hurdles - but that was part of the core weekend I think Paul.

On the level 2 course recently done by myself run by UKA the stated that TJ can only be done at FULL speed by jump specific coachs, not even the general level 3 athletics course qualified coaches. Intimation that at full speed too much stress on body, so needed event specific coaches. Irony is a PE teaher at school is allowed to teach flat out TJ without any UKA qualifications.

Yes - on the course I did, the hurdles and TJ were one to show us how easy it was to get someone 3 striding. Not so we could teach but to help demonstrate some of the skills of a coach I feel.

You are certainly right about the PE teachers though. One of my very good 800m girls had a class of plyometrics at school and never ran for 3 months afterwards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gra

UKA and England Athletics have confirmed that all coaches with pre existing coaching qualifications at L2 or Coach ie. FMR, CiRF can access the new modules for free EXCEPT those who did the L2 Children In Athletics.

---

I've got the FMR qualification and the uka website won't let me access the modules.

I've emailed uka, I'll let you know how/if it progresses.

Incidentally my Coach Licence says 'Level 2 Group Event Coach' on the front. The phrase 'FMR' isn't used, although the back says 'Fell & Hill plus athletics conditioning......lead groups of adults in endurance sessions'

I received my new license having been re-CRBd and it changed from Level 2 Endurance coach to FMR!!

I had to contact them to let them know, they ackowledged an internal error and re-issued my license.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Witton Park

I received my new license having been re-CRBd and it changed from Level 2 Endurance coach to FMR!!

I had to contact them to let them know, they ackowledged an internal error and re-issued my license.

---

Have you been able to access the eLearn stuff then, Richard?

I haven't had time to try yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AndyA

I've got the FMR qualification and the uka website won't let me access the modules.

I've emailed uka, I'll let you know how/if it progresses.

Incidentally my Coach Licence says 'Level 2 Group Event Coach' on the front. The phrase 'FMR' isn't used, although the back says 'Fell & Hill plus athletics conditioning......lead groups of adults in endurance sessions'

---

I got an email back from UKA, here it is

Quote:

---

Hi Andrew,
Thanks for your enquiry.

I see from your My Athletics Portal account that you are a level 2
coach in Fell & Mountain Running. Is that correct? I'm afraid that
this qualification does not make you eligible to access LEARN. A full
list of eligible and non-eligible qualifications
is available halfway down the page here:

http://coaching.uka.org.uk/qualifica...award/egc-faq/

Regards,

Elizabeth

---

This confirms that UKA are not interested in the Fellrunning qualification or in helping fell coaches in developing their skills.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AndyA

I got an email back from UKA, here it is



This confirms that UKA are not interested in the Fellrunning qualification or in helping fell coaches in developing their skills.

---

Doesn't this contradict #27?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike T

Doesn't this contradict #27?

---

Yes it does, can't say I'm surprised though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AndyA

This confirms that UKA are not interested in the Fellrunning qualification or in helping fell coaches in developing their skills.

---

I thought I would post to clarify a few of the issues raised in this thread and also provide FRA coaches with a little more information on UKA’s plans for FMR qualifications in the future.

For those who just want the facts:

1. Having reviewed the situation the 46 individuals already holding only a “Level 2 Fell and Mountain Running Coach” award can now access LEARN and the UKA Event Group Qualifications – just like other coaches holding a legacy Level 2 award (except Level 2 CIA).
2. The Level 2 Fell and Mountain Running Coach award will soon be replaced with a new ‘Coach in Running Fitness: Fell and Mountain Running’ or CiRF FRM award for short. Please note: Like all CiRF award holders, individuals taking this new course will NOT be eligible for to the UKA Event Group qualifications unless they hold an eligible legacy coaching award or first take the Athletics Coach qualification.
3. The FRA are currently working with UKA to develop further specialist FRM related awards that meet the needs of the FMR community. These more detailed awards will be all Fell and Mountain specific.
4. UKA provide free access to over 50 hours of endurance specific related coaching material via uCoach http://coaching.uka.org.uk/coaching/event_specific/ as well as over 200 hours of material on other topics related to endurance coaching. The information in the Event Group and Event Specialist Endurance awards is simply a concise more thoroughly structured version of this information. So if you never want to take another coaching award in your life you can still gain access to the information contained in them, all be it through a less structured route, by staying up to date with what is published on uCoach.

For those who want the detail:

The new UKA Coaching Qualifications Structure was created in 2009 to try and better meet the needs of all the coaches volunteering in athletics. One of our main concerns was to specifically address the needs of volunteers working in a off track environment typically with adult athletes. For a long time these individuals had no choice but to attend coaching courses that focused on coaching young athletes in an environment (the athletics track) that they would never again visit.

This resulted in UKA splitting their offing of courses into essentially two pathways: Track and Field and Off Track Endurance. The courses on the track and field side of things initially have a large focus on athlete development and running, jumping and throwing skills – because the majority of coaches working in Track and Field Clubs deal with young developing athletes and these skills are essential to all event groups either directly or as an element of supplemental conditioning and skill development.

The UKA Event Group qualifications (which is what this thread is about) are positioned on the Track and Field side and are designed for coaches working with track and field athletes typically aged 14-18 who are competing at a range of events within an event group (800+, Steeplechase, Cross Country etc for the Endurance version). They build on the content on the Athletics Coach qualification – which unlike the previous Level 1 and Level 2 have a real focus on developing the technical skills of running, jumping and throwing skills in all young athletes.

The intention behind this approach is to encourage the next generation of athletes to all develop these skills at an early age so they can then be used as the basis for the specific training programmes they will undertake as adults. In the future this will hopefully result in those athletes who reach elite world class level not having to spend years relearning these skills when physios and S&C coaches start to encourage them to include such work in their programmes.

Because it builds directly on Athletics Coach, the Event Group Endurance course includes quite a lot of content related to the use of jumping and throwing within conditioning programmes for endurance runners. In addition it also includes a lot of the information on athlete development and encourages the development of sprinting skills for young track endurance runners.

Because of the emphasis on sprinting on track, jumping and throwing it was originally decided that the gap between the content of a Level 2 Fell and Mountain Running course must be too big without first including some kind of bridging module and so the Level 2 FMR was provisionally excluded from the list of eligible prerequisites.

However, when Richard contacted us about access he pointed out that unlike the other Level 2 awards in Speed, Jumps, Throws and Endurance the Level 2 FMR was actually based on the more in depth UKCC specifications. This prompted a review of the UKCC material and indeed the FRM course was far more in depth than originally perceived and so a decision was reversed. Now anyone who only holds the “Level 2 Fell and Mountain Running Coach” award can gain access to the material. I would like to thank Richard for bringing this issue to our attention.

In terms of the future of FRM qualifications, as I explained earlier, a key aim of the updated qualifications structure is to provide more tailored courses than UKA offered in the past. The majority of individuals who attend FRM courses do so because they do not have access to a track and their athletes are not engaged in ‘Track and Field’ athletics. Therefore, moving forwards we are working with the FRA to develop a new set of courses specifically for the needs of these individuals. The first of these will be the Coach in Running Fitness FMR course (CiRF FMR for short). This replaces the Level 2 FMR and has the distinct advantage of applicants being able to undertake this course without first having to do any kind of track based course. Instead new coaches can go straight to this having completed a Leader in Running Fitness (LiRF) award, which is only 1 day long and is entirely off track focused.

Having completed the CiRF FMR, candidates will be insured to coach off track endurance activities. Following on from this we are currently designing further more specialised courses specifically for FMR coaches in conjunction with the FRA. More details of these will be announced by the FRA once everything has been decided. I think you will also be glad to know that all the more in depth courses will also be significantly more affordable than then previous in depth qualification offerings by UKA (Level 3 and 4). In fact over the long term we will be restructuring all courses to reduce prices and take more and more advantage of online learning.

One important point to note here is that the new CiRF FRM is specifically designed for coaches who want to coach OFF TRACK as an alternative to doing the on track route via Assistant Coach and Athletics Coach. Therefore it falls on the ‘off track’ side of the coaching qualifications structure and so WILL NOT automatically qualify individuals to access the Track and Field based Event Group and Event Specialist qualifications. This is because the Track and Field based Event Group and Event Specialist courses are designed to follow on from Athletics Coach and now the pathways are explicit, new individuals starting out will need to follow this route.

So if someone suddenly wants to switch and take an on track qualification after qualifying as a CiRF they will need to take Athletics Coach first to bridge the knowledge and insurance gap in the qualifications before moving onto other awards. This has been made explicit since 2009 when the off track endurance pathway was first introduced with the CiRF course, which is aimed mainly at road runners as opposed to fell and hill.

Finally I would like to raise awareness of the fact that all the information available in any UKA coaching qualification is usually freely available on uCoach prior to being packaged into a structured qualification. Indeed in the ‘additional resources’ section of each module of the Event Group qualifications there are links to the resources that inspired it.

While uCoach does not have any specific FMR material at present (although I’m hoping that will change in the future) there is a lot of material on endurance http://coaching.uka.org.uk/coaching/event_specific/, athlete development http://coaching.uka.org.uk/coaching/...e_development/, sports science http://coaching.uka.org.uk/coaching/...mance-science/ and planning http://coaching.uka.org.uk/coaching/...-and-strategy/, freely available.

Before Christmas 2012 we will also be launching a new feature called uCoach:SHARE which allows Licensed coaches to upload their own material and share it with the wider coaching community. Hopefully some of the members of the FRA will upload info on things like navigation and their favourite fell running sessions.

I am not a regular reader of this forum so if you have any further questions it’s probably best to address them to Graeme who can pass them onto UKA and hopefully provide you with answers.

I hope this has helped clarify this issue and I wish you all well during winter training.

Best regards,

Tom Crick
UKA CPD Manager and uCoach Administrator

This kind of thing brings UKA into disrepute.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tom Crick

Having completed the CiRF FMR, candidates will be insured to coach off track endurance activities to over 12s. Tom Crick
UKA CPD Manager and uCoach Administrator

---

Those of us who completed this course last year (the FMR course) - are we also only insured to work with over 12s?