FMR Coaching Courses relevance

[IainR]

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...

[Witton Park]

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.

[Witton Park]

- 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.

[Witton Park]

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.

[Mr1470]

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!

[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?

[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.
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.

[Witton Park]

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.

[biara]

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.

[Witton Park]

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.