This is Part Three of the original article that appeared in
the IAAF Technical Journal that was published under the title "Coaches Education – a
perspective," New Studies In
Athletics, Vol. 6 # 4,1991, pp. 7-11
Can
you teach someone to coach?
Coaching is definitely an art.
It is a feel for saying and doing the right thing at the right time. I question if this can be taught. On the other hand the technical aspects
can be taught and coaching skills can be improved in this manner. Communication
skills, leadership skills, and psychological skills all can be enhanced through
education. All of this is dependent on the desire of the coach to want to be
better. Just because a coach
attends a course and passes a test is no guarantee of that individual’s ability
to coach. This is another reason that the focus should be on education rather
certification.
Is
there a different approach? Yes there are as many approaches as there are
countries that have programs. The
key is does that system meet the needs of the athletics coaching community in
that country. I feel that a slower
more methodical approach would have beneficial to our program. I think it is
necessary to have a paid professional staff to institute a national level program. More time should have been taken to
assess the needs of the coaches at all levels of the sport. Also more time should have been spent
on exploring methods to bring the information to those who need it the most.
As
in many other countries the geographical size of the country posed many
problems. The foremost problem was one of basic logistics of assigning
instructors and scheduling schools in the correct areas. There were also
regional differences that should have been considered when designing a program
for a country the size of the United States. In certain areas the club programs are stronger and have
more influence than the interscholastic programs. Curriculum adjustments to account for this would have been
helpful. The fact that the program
had minimum funding did not make the process any easier. Fortunately due to attendance fees the
program was able to support itself at a very minimal level. This continues to be problem. Basically the size and level of the
program should be determined by the funding. This may not necessarily be the ideal but it will allow for
a level of excellence rather than a watered down program.
Coaching
education must be an integral part of the total national development
program. The career of the coach
transcends the career of the elite international class athlete. One good coach produces a ripple
effect. That coach will produce many good athletes, but along the way there
will be many athletes who will go into coaching. It is trite to say, but coach’s begat coaches. Coaches are the foundation of a system. A small investment in coaching
education is a true long-term investment in quality development of a national
program.
Realities
of the modern coaching dictate that the coach cannot keep up with the volume of
information necessary to stay current in all areas due to the information and
knowledge explosion. In the US the
coach must be a generalist out of necessity. This is especially true for those
coaches working at the beginning stages of the development process. As the athlete rises through the system
the coach must become increasingly more specialized to meet the changing needs
of the athlete. At no stage of the
total coaching process should the athlete be limited in his or her development
by a deficiency on the part of the coach.
This requires that as the athlete achieves the elite level of
performance that the coach becomes the leader of a team of experts with one
goal in mind, to make the athlete better. This requires task identification –
What does a coach have to do relative to the development level of the athletes
he is working with. What can be
done to make the job easier and the coach more efficient in performance?
This
logically leads to the areas of evaluation and accountability. Is the material that is being taught
being understood and used? Is the
coaching education program actually changing coaching behavior and improving
the standard of coaching? What are
they actually learning in the program? Is the theory being transferred into
practice? Are the teaching and
learning models that are being used valid? All of these questions demand answers to insure that coaching
education is viable. A program
that produces coaches that are not effective is not of value to the national
system. A measure of the success
of coaches going through the program is how many athletes they have involved in
their programs. What have they
done to promote the sport in their respective area, such as hosting
competitions, clinics, or workshops?
In summary the coach has to be the center or focus of the development
process for that process to have any long-term success.
All
nations, regardless of development level, could profit from the new IAAF
program. The international scope
of the program lends a perspective unavailable to any individual nation. The development of a standardized
international curriculum leading to an IAAF Diploma is a positive step. Nations can build upon it to suit their
individual needs using the IAAF program as a standard. The coach is an essential spoke in the
wheel of development regardless of the development level of the country. The role of the coach relative to
underdeveloped, emerging, and developed countries differs but the knowledge
base necessary for success is the
same in all situations.
The
development of the TAC Coaching Education program has been a tremendous
experience for all those involved.
We have all gained a better insight into the coaching process. Hopefully this brief overview of the
experience will prove beneficial to others beginning their own program.