BFHS Chief Assessor
In 2014 I was appointed as Chief Assessor for the BFHS coaching programme. Previous to this I was Regional Assessor for the North of England.
My experience related to this post goes back to 1989, when I first qualified as a fencing coach. This was the AFA (Amateur Fencing Association) Club Leader's award, which became the Level 1 coaching award. In 1990 I qualfied as a Club Coach, equivalent to level 2. Both were taken under Pat Pearson.
It took until 2007 (!) to actually get my certificate as a Club Coach, by which time the AFA had become British Fencing and Club Coach was now Level 2 Coach. Ironically perhaps I ceased teaching 'sport' fencing the following year.
In the interim, I qualfied as a teacher on the University of Sunderland 2-year Compressed B.Ed and as a martial arts instructor with ASMAA-SDF. I eventually attained the rank of Master Level Instructor and Senior Assessor with ASMAA-SDF and was appointed their Head of Coaching.
I am currently developing the IL2-4 programme for BFHS. The thinking behind this programme goes like this:
IL1 tests whether the coach is safe and competent to teach a fencing lesson. Whilst it is sufficient to obtain insurance and run a class, IL1 is intended only as a basic coaching qualification.The general expectation is that IL1 coaches will be associated with or under the guidance of a more senior coach, or will be involved in development of their coaching abilities and subject knowledge. It was never intended that IL1 be the only coaching qualification available from the BFHS. It is instead better thought of as the entry level qualification.
It is intended to build more preparation for IL1 into the coaching programme, in the form of coach development days and training for higher-level coaches in how to assist the development of coach cadidates.
IL2 includes both assessment and taught content. It is intended to ensure that BFHS coaches are competent to teach a fencing class on an ongoing basis. Content includes risk assessment, class management and drilling methodologies.
Il2 is intended as the standard for coaches who run their own club.
IL3 includes both assessment and taught content. it is intended to ensure that high-level BFHS coaches are well able to coach fencers as well as teaching a fencing class. Content includes material on how different styles of learning affect different fencers and the use of various coaching metholdolgies to create the most effectve fencers (or to effectvely facilitiate the learning process of the fencers). Also included is material on developing coach candidates.
IL3 is intended as an advanced coaching qualification, but one available to all coaches as a logical development of their abilities.
IL4 is intended as the highest assessed coaching qualification. There is no formal taught component. Instead the candidate is expected to present some aspect of their experience that shows they have gone beyond the taught IL2-3 material.
IL4 is intended as recognition of an extremely high coaching standard.
Note that whilst all BFHS coaches are expected to undertake historical interpretation and to teach historically authentic material, the details of their interpretation are not relevant to their coaching level. Thus an IL3 coach might well be teaching material that another coach disagrees with, but the qualification serves asa assurance that it is very well taught. Scholarship is a separate but related issue to instructorship, as is martial ability (ie the ability to fence well). However, we would expect that an IL4 coach would display a generally high level of scoalarship and martial ability.
In short:
IL1: Can teach a fencing lesson in a safe and competent manner
IL2: Can teach a class on an ongoing basis
IL3: Can get the best out of individuals whilst teaching a class
IL4: Raises the standard of the whole BFHS
A Personal Note
It is my belief that a structured coaching programme would benefit the Fed for numerous reasons. It reduces the risk we run in terms of someone taking an IL1 and then going off to do whatever they like for a decade. I've seen this in the martial arts world, where instructors are not really teaching what they qualified in, but using the organsation's name to lend legitimacy.
While we are very open about what can be done under the BFHS banner, the existence of a strucutred programme allows us to show a level of quality control exists, which may have legal implications and will certainly help in developing the image of the BFHS as a professional (in the sense of responsible and competent) body.
Rather obviously, the fact that someone has passed a given level of instructor qualification indicates only that they can teach what they know to that level. It does not mean that they know the same as another coach of the same level. My personal guidance would be that instructors should only teach what they are skilled in - at the very least, it is necessary to understand a technique well enough to be able to properly risk-assess it.
Thus, it is not unreasonable to expect a high-level coach who specialises in, say, backsword to admit that he knows relatively little about other areas if this is the case. This in no way demeans that coach; he is a specialist and an expert in his subject area. In particular, I am of the opinion that coaches who do not have a good background in wrestling and grappling should not teach it. Being a highly respected smallsword coach does not qualify one to each joint locks safely.
Thus my position as Chief Assessor is that a BFHS certificate indicates a candidate's ability to teach what they know, but not necessarily what it is that they know. Instructors are expected to be realistic about their areas of expertise and what lies outside them.
My experience related to this post goes back to 1989, when I first qualified as a fencing coach. This was the AFA (Amateur Fencing Association) Club Leader's award, which became the Level 1 coaching award. In 1990 I qualfied as a Club Coach, equivalent to level 2. Both were taken under Pat Pearson.
It took until 2007 (!) to actually get my certificate as a Club Coach, by which time the AFA had become British Fencing and Club Coach was now Level 2 Coach. Ironically perhaps I ceased teaching 'sport' fencing the following year.
In the interim, I qualfied as a teacher on the University of Sunderland 2-year Compressed B.Ed and as a martial arts instructor with ASMAA-SDF. I eventually attained the rank of Master Level Instructor and Senior Assessor with ASMAA-SDF and was appointed their Head of Coaching.
I am currently developing the IL2-4 programme for BFHS. The thinking behind this programme goes like this:
IL1 tests whether the coach is safe and competent to teach a fencing lesson. Whilst it is sufficient to obtain insurance and run a class, IL1 is intended only as a basic coaching qualification.The general expectation is that IL1 coaches will be associated with or under the guidance of a more senior coach, or will be involved in development of their coaching abilities and subject knowledge. It was never intended that IL1 be the only coaching qualification available from the BFHS. It is instead better thought of as the entry level qualification.
It is intended to build more preparation for IL1 into the coaching programme, in the form of coach development days and training for higher-level coaches in how to assist the development of coach cadidates.
IL2 includes both assessment and taught content. It is intended to ensure that BFHS coaches are competent to teach a fencing class on an ongoing basis. Content includes risk assessment, class management and drilling methodologies.
Il2 is intended as the standard for coaches who run their own club.
IL3 includes both assessment and taught content. it is intended to ensure that high-level BFHS coaches are well able to coach fencers as well as teaching a fencing class. Content includes material on how different styles of learning affect different fencers and the use of various coaching metholdolgies to create the most effectve fencers (or to effectvely facilitiate the learning process of the fencers). Also included is material on developing coach candidates.
IL3 is intended as an advanced coaching qualification, but one available to all coaches as a logical development of their abilities.
IL4 is intended as the highest assessed coaching qualification. There is no formal taught component. Instead the candidate is expected to present some aspect of their experience that shows they have gone beyond the taught IL2-3 material.
IL4 is intended as recognition of an extremely high coaching standard.
Note that whilst all BFHS coaches are expected to undertake historical interpretation and to teach historically authentic material, the details of their interpretation are not relevant to their coaching level. Thus an IL3 coach might well be teaching material that another coach disagrees with, but the qualification serves asa assurance that it is very well taught. Scholarship is a separate but related issue to instructorship, as is martial ability (ie the ability to fence well). However, we would expect that an IL4 coach would display a generally high level of scoalarship and martial ability.
In short:
IL1: Can teach a fencing lesson in a safe and competent manner
IL2: Can teach a class on an ongoing basis
IL3: Can get the best out of individuals whilst teaching a class
IL4: Raises the standard of the whole BFHS
A Personal Note
It is my belief that a structured coaching programme would benefit the Fed for numerous reasons. It reduces the risk we run in terms of someone taking an IL1 and then going off to do whatever they like for a decade. I've seen this in the martial arts world, where instructors are not really teaching what they qualified in, but using the organsation's name to lend legitimacy.
While we are very open about what can be done under the BFHS banner, the existence of a strucutred programme allows us to show a level of quality control exists, which may have legal implications and will certainly help in developing the image of the BFHS as a professional (in the sense of responsible and competent) body.
Rather obviously, the fact that someone has passed a given level of instructor qualification indicates only that they can teach what they know to that level. It does not mean that they know the same as another coach of the same level. My personal guidance would be that instructors should only teach what they are skilled in - at the very least, it is necessary to understand a technique well enough to be able to properly risk-assess it.
Thus, it is not unreasonable to expect a high-level coach who specialises in, say, backsword to admit that he knows relatively little about other areas if this is the case. This in no way demeans that coach; he is a specialist and an expert in his subject area. In particular, I am of the opinion that coaches who do not have a good background in wrestling and grappling should not teach it. Being a highly respected smallsword coach does not qualify one to each joint locks safely.
Thus my position as Chief Assessor is that a BFHS certificate indicates a candidate's ability to teach what they know, but not necessarily what it is that they know. Instructors are expected to be realistic about their areas of expertise and what lies outside them.
