{"id":849,"date":"2020-04-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2020-04-21T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/leadersinsport.com\/performance-institute\/reports\/coach-education-in-english-football-learning-from-the-past-to-inform-the-future\/"},"modified":"2025-12-15T05:12:19","modified_gmt":"2025-12-15T05:12:19","slug":"coach-education-english-football","status":"publish","type":"article","link":"https:\/\/leadersinsport.com\/performance-institute\/articles\/coach-education-english-football\/","title":{"rendered":"Coach Education in English Football – Learning from the Past to Inform the Future"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\n
\n\t
\n\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\n\t\t\t\t
\n \n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

\n Apr 21, 2020 <\/p>\n \t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>Articles<\/a>\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Coach Education in English Football – Learning from the Past to Inform the Future<\/h1>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\n \n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\n\t<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
Category<\/div>\n Coaching & Development<\/a> <\/div>\n
\n
Share<\/div>\n Facebook<\/a>\n Twitter<\/a>\n Email<\/a>\n Copy Link<\/a>\n
https:\/\/leadersinsport.com\/performance-institute\/articles\/coach-education-english-football\/<\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/section>\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

Colum Cronin and Reece Chapman examine the development and redevelopment of coach education in English football with a view to highlighting a direction of travel for other governing bodies to consider.<\/p>\n \n \n \n

\n

Colum Cronin<\/em><\/a> and Reece Chapman<\/a> of Liverpool John Moores University\u2019s School of Sport and Exercise Sciences are currently engaged in year three of an ongoing project with the Football Association to research their coach education provision at grassroots. In this Leaders Performance Institute feature, they examine the development and redevelopment of coach education in English football with a view to highlighting a direction of travel for other Governing Bodies to consider.<\/em><\/p>\n

\n

Introduction<\/b><\/strong><\/p>\n

Coaches can learn from innovative approaches such as the leaders\u2019 webinars, experiential learning in flipped classrooms<\/u><\/a>\u00a0or thinking aloud<\/u><\/a>.<\/i><\/em>\u00a0Nonetheless, perhaps the most explicitly defined source of coach learning is the traditional formal courses provided by National and International Governing Bodies of Sport. Unfortunately, however, such courses can be problematic. Most recently, researchers at Liverpool John Moores University and the University of Hertfordshire have published a harrowing account<\/u><\/a>\u00a0of sexual abuse in coach education (Lewis, Roberts, Andrews, & Sawiuk, 2020). More frequently, courses can be inadequate to the learning needs of coaches. Specifically, a focus on certification and a power imbalance between tutors and learner coaches means that coaches may perform a role on course in order to pass (Chesterfield , Potrac, & Jones, 2010). Further, courses often take place away from the everyday lives of learners in decontextualized environments where coaches \u2018practice\u2019 on each other. Accordingly, researchers and practitioners have questioned the relevance, authenticity, and usefulness of some traditional formal coach education (Stodter & Cushion, 2014).<\/p>\n

That said,\u00a0formal coach education does \u201chave the advantages of being packaged, having access to experts, formal assessment procedures, quality assurance measures, and recognition of achievement\u201d\u00a0(Mallet, Trudel, Lyle, & Rynne, 2009, p. 330).\u00a0Therefore, as organisations seek to improve their coach learning, it is important that they critically consider the lessons from the past in order to inform the future. In response, our recent research<\/u><\/a>\u00a0with colleagues Dave Richardson and Ed Cope (Chapman, Richardson, Cope, & Cronin, 2019)\u00a0moved beyond evaluation of single case study courses and explored coach education across a 50-year period (1967-2017). To do so, we focused on coach education in the English Football Association (FA). We examined 47 policy documents and coach education materials and interviewed 16 individuals with vast experiences of coach education as both a coach and tutor. Doing so provided a broad overview of the direction of coach education.<\/p>\n

Findings <\/b><\/strong><\/p>\n

Early Courses \u2013 <\/b><\/strong>\u201cthey were intense\u201d<\/b><\/strong><\/p>\n

The general findings from the study found that many early courses were perceived as dogmatic, and a top down power imbalance existed between tutors and coaches. We heard stories of coaches conforming to the tutors\u2019 wishes, in order to get through the test and achieve certification.<\/p>\n

For example, participant 1 reminisced on their experiences in the late 1960s and throughout the 1970s;<\/p>\n

Some of the behavioural mannerisms of the candidates mirrored the behaviours of the coaches. In effect, you can’t fail yourself. Stop, stand still, do some work, step back. You dare fail me because you\u2019ve just shown me how to do it. That\u2019s what you did.<\/p>\n

Participant 1 argued that learning was not the primary objective of either the coach or the tutor. Rather early courses were about getting a prestigious certificate (badge) that was held in high regard. Related to this, interviewees, such as participant 16, described tough courses, with long days on pitches and in classrooms. This meant courses \u201cwere intense\u201d\u00a0<\/i><\/em>physically and mentally. <\/i><\/em>\u00a0While arduous, participants who passed the course felt a sense of pride and course certification was important because it was a gateway to employment and they were part of an exclusive club who survived it.<\/p>\n

Interestingly, in some of the early resources examined, games based coaching was very prominent. Materials, such as Alan Wade\u2019s (1967) text<\/u><\/a>\u00a0shows how such approaches have been in place for some time. There is some excellent technical and tactical information in that text. Thus, when done well, formal coach education can be a mechanism to share powerful knowledge and good practices. Unfortunately however, many early materials were not very inclusive and female coaches and players are particularly absent from materials. Thus, early courses may have some valuable content for coach educators and coaches, but there is a need to ensure greater inclusivity and diversity.<\/p>\n

How did courses change? Initially<\/b><\/strong>\u00a0<\/i><\/b><\/em><\/strong>\u201cthere wasn’t much change\u201d<\/b><\/strong><\/p>\n

Courses between the 1970s and 1996 were perceived to have not \u201cchanged\u201d much at all\u00a0<\/i><\/em>(Participant 14). This statement can be associated with some long-standing \u201c<\/i><\/em>directors of coaching\u201d\u00a0<\/i><\/em>who maintained control and standards. <\/i><\/em>Indeed, one Director of Coaching\u00a0was reported to have observed the final assessments of many coaching candidates, which again suggests a top down element of control. For example, participants described that they were prescribed what to do to complete the course;<\/p>\n

The coach must have your socks pulled up to pass<\/p>\n

(Participant 6)<\/p>\n

The coach educator at the front of the room held all the power \u2026 if you don’t do it this way, you won’t get the qualification\u2026 very tutor dominated \u2026 very much that these are the right answers that you need to pass.<\/p>\n

(Participant 9)<\/p>\n

This approach to coach education (i.e. authoritative and regimental) \u00a0is perhaps understandable given the personal history of many senior coach educators at this time, which included early careers in the military.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe whole thing needed a complete refresh\u201d<\/b><\/strong><\/p>\n

In 1996, the introduction of \u201cA New Generation of Courses (1996); and the Charter for Quality (1997)\u201d sparked a different approach where FA policy advocated for a more inclusive and personal coach education. UK Government funding for vocational education may have aided this development in coach education. The changes are perhaps most recognisable within FA documents since the early 2000\u2019s, where the language places an emphasis on learning and learners. Today, over 20,000 learners per annum complete grassroots coach education courses with the FA. Further, the appointment of more explicit \u201ceducational staff\u201d\u00a0in 2016 was a clear tactic to embed a learning focus within FA courses. Some of our participants argued that such changes were needed;<\/p>\n

\u201cThere finally seemed to be a realism that we were not meeting the needs of the coaches\u201d<\/p>\n

(Participant 6)<\/p>\n

\u201cThe FA now understand a lot more about learning\u201d<\/p>\n

(Participant 8)<\/p>\n

The redevelopment of course curricula included an emphasis on understanding the psychological and social aspects of sport as well as the traditional physical and technical content. Teaching approaches have also changed in policy documents. Indeed, FA formal education policy (2016) now advocates a \u201csocial constructivist\u201d approach which may manifest through tutors attempting to facilitate group discussions, peer learning, and a recognition of coaches as adult learners with unique histories, skills and motives. A potential example of this is where policy asks tutors to visit learners\u2019 own football contexts where they working with their players. Personalised support can then be offered. Related to this, policy advocates that learners should have more time to complete courses at their pace, and have a choice of project based assessment. Thus, policy at the grassroots level has moved away from a focus on certification and performing for the test, and is now focused on helping a coach develop in their own world. Of course, our next steps are to examine if and how this ambitious approach is implemented and experienced in practice?<\/p>\n

Practical Recommendations <\/b><\/strong><\/p>\n

By examining the development of coach education in football, we can highlight a direction of travel for other Governing Bodies to consider. To that end, our general findings have positioned recent FA coach education policy as a more (if not wholly) emancipatory process, which sees a development away from control and an emphasis on learning. This progressive development of FA formal coach education has been slow, but is seemingly positive. For instance, current FA Education policy and materials <\/i><\/em>are more diverse than earlier iterations. Such observations should prompt other NGBs to consider how accessible their own courses are. In addition, other coach developers may benefit from considering other changes at the FA. For example, could coach development better;<\/p>\n