FMR Coaching Courses relevance

[Witton Park]

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.

[LissaJous]

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

[Mike T]

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.

[LissaJous]

I've had a think about it..

1. Firstly, the paragraph
   

   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.

[Witton Park]

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?

[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..

[Witton Park]

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.

[Tuffer]

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.

[Nigel]

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.

[IainR]

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...