Due to the mixed roles, interests and needs of the participants, there were naturally some areas of disagreement. Accordingly, the areas discussed below are the
161
main areas of contention or disagreement. Alongside this, the participants showed
different agendas or priorities in several areas. However, many of these are clearly due to their different subject matter expertise. Finally, it is worth noting that disagreements tend to be more nuanced than black versus white. In short, there was more agreement than disagreement, with many points presented with subtle rather than absolute differences.
5.5.2.1. Discipline specific units: when to ‘specialise’?
Due to the complex nature of cycling and its six sub-disciplines, the timing (when accessible) and content of discipline specific units (DSU) in the coach education pathway was a hotly debated topic. The discipline specific units (DSU) are currently delivered to coaches after they have completed the level 2 core qualification when the majority of coaches choose the DSU they want to undertake further training in to develop themselves (or their riders). This “choice” inevitably stems from the
environment they wish to coach in or their desire to upskill in coaching the discipline they have taken part in for many a year as identified in Chapter 4. The interviewees held a common view that discipline-specific training was important once some core skills had been established, with VP2 emphasising this point:
"In a sporting capacity [the disciplines] are segregated properly... but they do
have some common ground.”
However, what was clear from the interviewees was that recognition of the different technical elements within the disciplines should be noted and catered for in coach training. VP7 supported the technical nature of the sport(s) of cycling, stating:
"I feel like it’s totally different in different disciplines: BMX using start gates, jumps, [etc.] back to track cycling where it’s about [track-specific demands];
162
Interestingly, and conversely, a number of coaches felt that the DSU’s should be delivered earlier in the coaches’ development by the NGB to upskill the coaches with the technical skills of the discipline. P1 and subsequently P8 hold this point of view stating:
"My view is that we need coaches to be able to coach in their discipline as soon
as possible."
"You need to go straight from the early qualifications straight into the
disciplines, and that makes sense for the disciplines."
As demonstrated here, in relation to both the current pathway structure and potential amendments/suggestions to the pathway, participants had very differing opinions as to when coaches should cover discipline specific units. For some, the DSU's were the core reason as to why an individual commenced the pathway, and therefore should be covered as early as possible. Somewhat comparatively, other participants did not comment on the timings of DSUs.
5.5.2.2. APL/APEL: How much, what of and when?
In general, there was a strong consensus that implementing a clearer structure for the accreditation of prior learning and/or experience (APL/APEL) would be a welcome amendment to the coaching pathway. For the majority of participants, they expressed a view that several elements of Level 1 would be unnecessary for some potential coaches. For example, P1 stated:
"I really think APEL is important. If you've done a Level 1 in other sports, you
should be able to transfer that across. But we need ways of checking that
knowledge."
Furthermore, it was generally and strongly agreed that Level 1 qualified coaches from other sports should be able to move straight to Level 2. With regards to other professionals, however, such as those with education qualifications, or sports related
163
degrees, participants felt that there should be a process to identify their current level of knowledge. Interestingly and supporting this point, VP5 stated:
"Cycling is a complex sport. Therefore, some of the elements covered at Level
1, such as the Health and Safety, are still really important regardless of how
many degrees you've got!"
Building on this point, several participants suggested that we must be mindful of the complex and technical nature of the sport before giving APEL. Furthermore, a number of the participants felt that neither a degree nor a qualification from another sport would be sufficient to bypass Level 2 or Level 3 for example VP2 stated:
"Culture of the sport is important. I think there are things that are essential, for
example anti-doping."
Whilst VP7 identified another essential point regarding the technical nature of the sport(s)being a potential barrier stating:
"I’m not sure what you’d have in your locker that would be relevant to get APEL from Level 2 [in BMX]. I don’t think a degree would give you the technical know-how: a lot of coaching is about breaking down the techniques and
coaching them."
5.5.2.3. Common level 1: relevance to all?
The majority of participants felt that a common “broad brush” Level 1 would be the most appropriate pathway amendment to enable novice coaches “to do as much as possible”, and to allow a smoother transition between sub-disciplines. That sated, the participants also identified a number of key points to consider prior to developing a common Level 1 as P6 stated:
"We need to make sure this is in sync with effective culture; not high
performance culture, but good culture and developing people. So, making Level
164
foundation, and the pillars run through the Level 2 and 3 really clearly. It could
link the courses really well."
Interestingly, the participants were also supportive of any change in the Level 1 being able to accommodate a number of sub-disciplines that are currently categorised in BC as different roles with different training and different insurance. P8 explained:
"If you zoom out and think about the end user, 'what do people want?',
invariably it's a blend of all those things [coach, trainer, leader] ... Some sort of
blended early qualification would really fit the bill."
5.5.3. Improving the Alignment of the Coaching Pathway Moving Forwards: