Continuidades y rupturas: libertad religiosa y libertas eclessiae

In the UK, the fate of sport during the post-war years (i.e. since 1945) has been linked to the political priorities set by various governments (Henry 2001). Not surprisingly, the importance of sport to government policy has varied during this time and, whilst a full account of these changes is beyond the scope of this chapter, it is reasonably straight-forward to track these historical developments (see, for example, Houlihan and White 2002; Henry 2001). It should be noted, however, that the relationship between national policy and local delivery in relation to sport has rarely been centre-stage. Hence, sport continues to be a discretionary service of the local state (Robinson 2004), with no manda-tory requirement (unlike education and social services) for local authorities to fully address its provision and opportunities. However, although in reality most local authorities have chosen to provide sport as a service, because of this discretionary nature the outcome has been a variable pattern of provision.

sports development for coaches

77

Elected in 1997, the current Labour government produced a number of key policy documents relating to sport. These included:

■ A Sporting Future for All (Department of Culture Media and Sport [DCMS] 2000);

■ The Government’s Plan for Sport (DCMS 2001); and

■ Game Plan (DCMS/Strategy Unit 2002).

Devolution has also impacted on sports policy. Hence, both the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly have produced their own strategies for sport. These include:

■ Sport 21 (Scottish Executive 1998); and

■ Climbing Higher (Welsh Assembly Government 2005).

Taken together, these documents provide a long-term framework for sport to be developed. In the case of Game Plan and Climbing Higher, 20-year strategies inclusive of targets have been set. These policy documents all emphasise the twin objectives of making the UK more physically active (participation) and achieving international sporting success (excellence). Within this overall framework, the government is committed to ‘Third Way’

politics (Giddens 1997). This requires equality and social inclusion to be embraced as key principles within any public service reforms. This has led some commentators to write that sport for sport’s sake is no longer relevant at the community level and that, alternatively, the value of sport is in its ability to serve other wider political interests (see, for example, Coalter 2001). Houlihan and White (2002: 4) also pick up on this issue by articulating:

Perhaps most significant in policy terms has been the tension between develop-ment through sport (with the emphasis on social objectives and sport as a tool for human development) and development of sport (where sport is valued for its own sake).

So how does sports coaching fit into this wider policy context? Emerging from the government’s original Sporting Future for All (DCMS 2001) report, a Coaching Task Force (CTF) was established in June 2001. It undertook a wide-ranging and detailed review of sports coaching and concluded that there was:

■ not enough paid opportunities for coaches;

■ too much reliance on volunteers within coaching;

■ no proper career structure for coaches; and

■ a lack of nationally recognised/transferable qualifications within, and in relation to, coaching.

As a result, Sports Coach UK, the body responsible for coach development in Britain, was charged with addressing these issues and significant funding was made available. Two

initiatives, the UK Coaching Certificate (UKCC) and the UK Coaching Framework, were subsequently developed. Given the comments made earlier in relation to devolution, the fact that these initiatives have been agreed on a UK level is important. Each initiative will be considered briefly, but students are directed to the Sports Coach UK website to obtain more detailed information on both (http//www.sportscoachuk.gov).

The UKCC

Those within Sports Coach UK charged with developing the UK Coaching Certificate (UKCC) are currently working with a number of national governing bodies to achieve a five-level UK framework of standards for coach education. This will help professionalise the role of the coach, enable movement between the home countries and provide opportunities to move between sports through the inclusion of core components. The current position of the UKCC is that 31 national governing bodies have agreed to be subject to this new coach education structure. The introduction of these 31 sports into the structure has been divided into three distinct phases. Phase one and phase two sports (totalling 21) received funding to implement the UKCC by the end of 2006. The other ten sports have received administrative and training support to enable them to lead the second wave of implementation.

An extensive monitoring and evaluation programme in relation to the success of the new structure has been undertaken by Marketing and Opinion Research International (MORI) on behalf of Sports Coach UK. Here, in 2004, a series of in-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted with a number of relevant personnel, firstly to evaluate the delivery planning process, and later to assess the ongoing functioning of the UKCC.

Research was also conducted to determine enablers as well as barriers that the governing bodies faced regarding the implementation of the UKCC. In summing up the delivery planning process, the perceived benefits included defining better the sports coach’s role, standardising coach education and qualifications, raising the profile of coaching and producing knowledgeable and competent coaches. Similarly, the ongoing implementation study reported significant progress in several areas including the identification of tutors, verifiers and assessors, the employment of extra staff, and greater support from governing body senior management and external agencies (Sports Coach UK 2004). Perhaps most importantly, however, was the emergence of support shown for the new structure from existing coaches. On the other hand, several barriers were also identified, including the increased demand on lead officers, a delay in guidance materials and poor networking between sports.

The UK Coaching Framework

The UK Coaching Framework is the long-term plan for coaching, and sets out its vision of establishing:

sports development for coaches

79

A cohesive, ethical, inclusive and valued coaching system where:

Skilled coaches support children, players and athletes at all stages of their development in their sport

And which is number one in the world by 2016

‘bench-marked against international best practice’

(Sports Coach UK 2006: 3)

The UK Coaching Framework maps out the key goals to take place over the next 11 years to achieve this vision. They will be incorporated into three phases which will, in turn, run concurrently:

■ Building the Foundation 2006–08 (3 years);

■ Delivering the Goals 2006–12 (7 years); and

■ Transforming the System 2006–16 (11 years).

The Framework also highlights the increasingly diverse roles expected of coaches. In seeking some clarity here in developing a coherent organisational system for sports coaching, the UK Coaching Model, which is subject to further detailed development, will be adopted. This recognises the need for long-term coach development (LTCD) and for it to sit alongside long-term athlete/player development (LTAPD), long-term sportsperson development (LTSD) and long-term disabled player development (LTDPD).