THE UKCC LEVEL 1–3
SUPPORT GUIDE
© The National Coaching Foundation, 2012
This resource is copyright under the Berne Convention. All rights are reserved. Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of private study, criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, no part of this publication can be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form without the prior written permission
of sports coach UK. Enquiries should be addressed to Coachwise Ltd. All images © Alan Edwards unless otherwise stated.
Cover images © Alan Edwards and Action Images Limited/Reuters.
Project Lead Officer: Sarah Collings
UKCC Technical Lead: Julie Mackintosh
Coachwise editorial and design team: Craig Smith and Matthew Dodd
The authors would like to thank the following people for their significant contribution to the development of this Guide: Anne Baker, Pete Ezard, Andrew Grant, Win Hayes, Rachel Hooper, Kurt Lindley, Julie Mackintosh, Sarah McQuade, Steve
McQuaid and Jon Woodward.
Published on behalf of sports coach UK by
90789:24 sports coach UK
Chelsea Close Off Amberley Road
Armley Leeds LS12 4HP
Tel: 0113-274 4802 Fax: 0113-231 9606 Email: [email protected]
Website: www.sportscoachuk.org Patron: HRH The Princess Royal
Coachwise Ltd Chelsea Close Off Amberley Road
Armley Leeds LS12 4HP
Tel: 0113-231 1310 Fax: 0113-231 9606 Email: [email protected]
Website: www.coachwise.ltd.uk
To enquire about accessing alternative formats of this resource, contact sports coach UK on 0113-274 4802 or email [email protected]
sports coach UK will ensure that it has professional and ethical values and that all its practices are inclusive and equitable.
THE UKCC LEVEL 1–3
SUPPORT GUIDE
Introduction
1
UKCC Journey
2
History of the UKCC 2
UKCC 4
– Development 4
– Endorsement 4
– Continuous Improvement 4
– Levels 5
The Sports’ Perspective 5
Checklist 5
Your Coaching System
6
The UK Coaching Framework 6
Awarding Organisation 6
Coach Education Strategy 7
Coach Education Workforce Planning 7
National Source Group
8
Development
8
The QCF System 8
The SCQF/SQA 11
RPL 11
Business Planning 15
Coach Education Costings and Efficiency Tool Kit 15
Cost Minimisation 16
Designing Your Qualification
20
Your Qualification 20
Developing a High-quality Coach Education Workforce 20
Learning Programme 21
Resources 27
Continuous Improvement 28
The M&E Tool Kit 32
Endorsement
35
Content Guidance Sheets
35
Glossary of Terms
36
References
38
INTRODUCTION
The UKCC Level 1–3 Support Guide – Second Editionis aimed at those charged with supporting and developing high-quality coach education opportunities. The Guide offers a simple, yet comprehensive, step-by-step route to developing a coach education programme aligned to UKCC criteria.
It embraces the UKCC as a development framework, which includes the evolution, endorsement and continuous improvement of coach education opportunities. The structure of the Guide provides an overview of the key areas for development, as well as further details and options as to how to implement them. The Content Guidance Sheets provide in-depth information linked to the common units. The UKCC Levels 1–3 Support Guide – Second Editiondirects you to the submission stage of endorsement and to the monitoring and evaluation as part of the continuous development of your coach education programme.
The areas of sport, coaching and education are dynamic and complex. As a result, this Guide will evolve in the light of best practice and ongoing learning. The Content Guidance Sheets will be regularly updated to support a progressive coach education programme.
Bev Smith
History of the UKCC
The need to bring change in the area of coach education was identified in the government’s Coaching Task Force Final Report(2002), in which significant limitations of quality assurance, comprehensiveness and variability characterised the existing ad-hoc system:
Coach development in the UK is variable in quantity and quality. Whilst a great deal of good work relating to the education and development of coaches can be identified, there is no overall leadership, direction and quality assurance, and the whole area is under-resourced. As a result, the UK has an ad-hoc system that allows organisations and individuals to choose whether to opt in or out. Consequently, coach education and qualification schemes vary enormously in terms of the quality of content, delivery and assessment both within and across sports.
The Report also identified ‘inconsistent coach education and qualification programmes leading to a lack of a recognisable professional framework and poor public recognition of the value of coaches’.
As a result of the Coaching Task Force Final Report,the Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) established a Coaching Steering Board, which then charged sports coach UK with developing a new system for coach qualifications – referred to as the UKCC – to address these weaknesses.
The UKCC intended to make astep changeto the UK coach education systemto revitalise education, training and the qualifications system to form part of a more strategic effort to professionalise sports coaching.
sports coach UK was tasked with designing, developing and implementing a comprehensive UK-wide coach education system, initially referred to as the National Coaching Certificate (NCC). This involved a lengthy process of consultation, research and collaboration between relevant organisations. The initial stages of the infrastructure development and collaboration were recorded in Impact Research Consultation Reports. This work provided the basis for the evolution of a revised framework of endorsement, more formalised certification, improved arrangements for quality assurance through awarding organisations, and improved learning resources and programmes.
During the process of development, and at different times, a number of key aspects became clear:
• A single qualification route with sport-specific
bolt-onswas not appropriate at that point in the sector’s development.
• A blended learning approach and the retention of governing body of sport control in deciding their own direction of development were more of a priority than the transferability of coaches between sports.
• NCC was inappropriate due to the UK-wide nature of developments.
• A four-level model should be championed over and above the five-level model to ensure alignment with European developments.
A number of groups were initiated to support the
development of the UKCC. The groups had appropriate and agreed representation from the key relevant stakeholders.
THE UKCC LEVEL 1–3 SUPPORT GUIDE – SECOND EDITION
UKCC JOURNEY
These groups included the:
• Coaching Project Board, which oversaw the implementation of the Coaching Task Force Final Reportrecommendations
• UKCC Sub-delivery Group, which specifically looked at the development and implementation of the UKCC • Governing Body Support Group, which ensured the
direction was appropriate for coach education, specifically from a governing body of sport perspective
• Qualification Support Groups, which looked specifically at the nature of qualifications and the appropriateness of developments for coaching in light of the wider skills agenda.
While these were the key development groups, there were also a significant number of meetings, forums and
consultations to ensure the programme developed was appropriate for coaches and coaching.
The aspiration was for a process that added value in terms of the development of the sports’ coach education offering, and which included a complianceelement. This was to be applied across the coaching sector in a way that was right for individual sports and home countries.
Funding was provided to a range of agencies to support the:
• development of the criteria and process
• implementation of the process against the agreed criteria • alignment of the UKCC developments to coaching as
a sector
• building of governing body of sport capacity to allow the developments to take place
• development of individual programmes that were to be submitted for UKCC endorsement (21 sports)
• initial stages of implementation of UKCC-endorsed programmes
• sharing of good practice across coaching, initially through the 10 Phase 3 sports.
Different levels of funding were provided to the relevant agencies depending on their role and the nature of the task they were completing. The decisions around the allocation of funding were associated with delivery plans submitted to the DCMS, the Home Country Sports Councils (HCSCs) and, where appropriate, sports coach UK.
In 2005, SkillsActive ran a pilot programme, which invited a number of sports to submit for UKCC endorsement. Using the learning from this pilot, sports coach UK initiated the revised UKCC endorsement programme in August 2006.
Since the initiation of these endorsement processes, over 130 Level 1–3 programmes have been UKCC endorsed in over 30 sports. This endorsement shows the governing bodies’ commitment to the development and continuous improvement of their coach education programmes. The UKCC endorsement process, the criteria and
qualification guidance have all been reviewed to ensure they are continually improving and are fit for purpose.
While the initial focus was on compliance with a set of sector agreed criteria, the UKCC has grown into a development framework to support the evolution of governing body sport-specific coach education.
The endorsement process and associated documentation have been adapted to ensure a more developmental and sport-centred approach. This helps use the process as a springboard for further development of the programmes, rather than a means to an end in itself. There is also a genuine desire for the process to support governing bodies of sport to develop at a pace appropriate to them, and develop the components of their coach education in line with their priorities.
The second version of the UKCC criteria has been evolved in consultation with a range of sector Partners. There are still compliancecriteria that must be evidenced overtly for endorsement; however, these are supported by
developmentcriteria that identify the planned progression in key areas, and rationalecriteria that provide the governing body of sport with an opportunity to share the reasons for their focus, content and direction in key areas. The UKCC qualification guidance document has morphed into common units. This has been the case on the Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework (SCQF) since the launch of the UKCC, and more recently in England, Wales and Northern Ireland by being placed on the Qualifications and Credit Framework (QCF). By moving the qualification guidance into more formal units, there is potential for reduced duplication, greater opportunities for the sharing of good practice, recognised prior learning (RPL), and
engagement with the wider education agenda. The main core elements from the qualification guidance are overtly present in the common units.
As a programme, the UKCC has moved from concept to implementation, and has provided the opportunity for governing bodies of sport across the UK to provide a clearer coach education landscape for coaches, performers and participants. It forms the model of good practice for the development of high-quality coach education experiences, and it will continue to evolve in line with emerging best practice.
UKCC
Development
The UKCC provides a structure to evolve a governing body of sport’s coach education programme. It covers:
• the qualification structure and the quality assurance of deliverers
• the coaches’ learning experience (learning programme) • the make-up of the coach education workforce (tutors,
assessors etc)
• learning resources used (books, websites, DVDs etc). Once the sport has decided to develop its programme using the UKCC framework (which could potentially lead to endorsement), there needs to be agreement on the level to be developed and a time frame.
The majority of sports that are now UKCC endorsed all began at Level 1 and have moved chronologically through the levels.
However, each level has different benefits and, depending on what the sport wants to gain from the qualification, starting at Level 2 or 3 may be a better option.
For example, sports that currently have no coaching qualifications and start at Level 2 can train independent coaches earlier than if they started at Level 1.
Alongside this, the sport needs to be clear on prerequisites for coaches to start at Level 2 so the learners on the course are the right coaches with the right skills needed to be a Level 2 coach.
The sport should either map its current awards or create new awards based on the units of common content for coaching (SkillsActive), as required by accreditation to a qualifications framework.
For further information on the QCF and SCQF, see pages 8–11 of this Guide.
For further information on designing your qualification, see pages 20–34.
Endorsement
To gain UKCC endorsement, a governing body of sport must demonstrate a certain level of development in its coach education programme based on these areas: • qualification structure
• quality assurance of deliverers • learning programme
• coach education workforce • learning resources.
This is determined against a set of endorsement criteria. The endorsement process is an objective and developmentally focused process, and offered at no cost to the sport being endorsed.
For further details surrounding the process of endorsement, please see page 35 of this Guide.
Continuous Improvement
Once a governing body of sport coach education
programme has received UKCC endorsement, the focus of the UKCC is the continuous improvement of the governing body’s coach education offer. This development considers the needs of the sport and its coaches.
Areas for development could include: • technical updates
• tactical developments
• underpinning knowledge updates, such as sport science and new research
• observation-based improvement through evaluating content and making sure it is fit for purpose
• analysing and evaluating content and making changes if necessary
• reaction to feedback from learners based on their learning experiences.
The UKCC is not ‘one size fits all’ and is implemented according to the specific characteristics and needs of each sport. A UKCC-endorsed coach education programme is first and foremost a governing body of sport programme that is developed by the governing body, with the support and development of their coaches in mind.
For further information on how to ensure continuous improvement, please see ‘What’s the Difference between Monitoring and Evaluation?’ on page 28, or contact the Coach Education Advisor (CEA) team:
Levels
When UKCC endorsement was initially developed, five levels of coaching were outlined. After consultation, the five levels were reduced to four to align with European qualifications. The interpretation was that the proposed Level 4 would now integrate the Level 4 and 5 benchmark statements. It was also proposed that there were
opportunities for sports to develop their own Level 5, or complement Level 4 with continuous professional development (CPD) opportunities tailored to the needs and demands of the sport’s own high-level coaches. These role descriptors are:
• Level 4 – Design, implement and evaluate the process and outcome of long-term/specialist coaching programmes.
• Level 3 – Plan, implement, analyse and revise annual coaching programmes.
• Level 2 – Prepare for, deliver and review coaching sessions.
• Level 1 – Assist more qualified coaches, delivering aspects of coaching sessions, normally under direct supervision. Governing bodies of sport have the flexibility to develop coach education programmes that meet their needs and, therefore, not all levels may be developed if they are deemed inappropriate for the sport’s coaching structure.
The Sports’ Perspective
The Welsh Rugby Union (WRU) sees UKCC as so much more than a tick-box exercise; it has been the development tool that has guided and sometimes challenged us to make the journey of the coach a rewarding one through our coach development programme. Working as three Unions has brought further experience and knowledge, which has benefited all who play the game.
Gerry Roberts, Coach Development Manager (East), WRU
Scottish Rugby supports now, as at the outset of UKCC, the continuous development of coach education within rugby union. Scottish Rugby embraces working as three Unions and sees the strengths of working together, which can be seen with the re-endorsement of Levels 1–3.
Jock Peggie, UKCC Development Manager, Scottish Rugby
The Rugby Football Union (RFU) has always been an advocate of UKCC and with the other Unions has worked continuously to raise the standard of coach education at all levels of the game. Gaining re-endorsement not only celebrates the work done, but shows the commitment to ongoing development of our coach education programme.
Gary Henderson, Head of Coach and Player Development, RFU
Going through the UKCC endorsement process for our Level 3 programme was a really developmental experience. sports coach UK strongly supported the collation of our materials against the endorsement criteria, and the review team gave detailed and constructive feedback for us to use going forward.
Kathryn Bonner, Head of Education, British Gymnastics
We are delighted to have seen our coach education qualifications recognised and re-endorsed once again. The Coaching and Education team work very hard to ensure our coaching pathway is the best it can be and confirmation such as this reinforces our belief that we are currently leading the world in this regard.
John Mills, Coaching, Education and Development Director, British Cycling
UKCC endorsement and support from sports coach UK have enabled the English Table Tennis Association (ETTA) to develop a series of qualifications from Levels 1–4, which are beginning to reshape coaching in table tennis. There is still much to do, however, ensuring the correct balance between how and what to coach at the early levels, although the check and challenge process, and requirements of UKCC endorsement, have set ETTA on the right path. Support from the Coach Education team at sports coach UK has been invaluable in this process, offering insights into other sports, learning from good practice, and finding a way to tailor new ideas to fit old solutions.
Jon Pett, Coach Education Manager, ETTA
UKCC has helped our coaches believe more in what they are doing. It has also helped them gain greater credibility among other volunteers and helps them feel as though they are making real progress.
Jane Barker, Riding for the Disabled Association
The UKCC has made a massive difference to British Reining. Never before have we had a formal, professional qualification in this country for western riding. We now have equality across all sports.
Pauline Brimson, Coaching Development Officer, Coach Educator and Assessor, British Reining
Checklist
The CEA team has a checklist that determines what is currently in place for your sport to begin to engage with the UKCC, and will highlight areas that will need developing. The checklist can be found at the following link:
www.snapsurveys.com/swh/surveypreview.asp?k=12974300 5977
Once completed, you can contact your CEA for further support. If you do not know who your CEA is, please contact [email protected]
The UK Coaching Framework
The UK Coaching Framework was developed to build upon the work of the Coaching Task Force, HCSCs and governing body of sport plans. The Framework was launched in 2008 at the third UK Coaching Summit. The vision behind The Framework is to:
• create a cohesive, ethical, inclusive and valued coaching system where skilled coaches support children, players and athletes at all stages of their development in sport • become a world leader by 2016
• enhance the quality of coaching at all stages • provide active, skilled and qualified coaches to
meet demand. This will lead to:
• sustained and increased participation
• improved performances in sport underpinned by clear career structures for coaches.
This structured approach has been broken down into a 3–7–11 Year Action Plan:
• Building the Foundations: three years (2006–2009) • Delivering the Goals: seven years (2006–2013) • Transforming the System: 11 years (2006–2017). The UK Coaching Framework is now seen very much as a working tool to support governing bodies of sport, local coach system support networks (CSSNs) and other Partners to facilitate the evolution of coach and coaching development systems.
Further information can be found withinThe UK Coaching Framework: A 3–7–11 Year Action Plandocument. Please
email [email protected] for a copy or visit www.sportscoachuk.org/resource/uk-coaching-framework
Awarding Organisation
An awarding organisation is regulated by Ofqual, and its job is to assist in the development and management of qualifications and provide quality assurance for those qualifications.
Governing bodies of sport can set themselves up as their own awarding organisations, whereby they:
• establish their own administration and set their production costs
• place their qualifications on the appropriate qualifications framework
• organise their own – learning programmes
– resources and resource dispatch – tutor and assessor packs – internal accreditation – learner registration – delivery centre approval – quality assurance – data collection – course evaluation.
A guidance document about awarding organisations is available on request from the CEA team by emailing [email protected]
Click on the links for the UK Coaching Modeland
Participant Pathwayfor further information about these two documents.
THE UKCC LEVEL 1–3 SUPPORT GUIDE – SECOND EDITION
Coach Education Strategy
VisionThe Vision of the UK Coach Education Strategy is that: every coach sees their coaching as a development opportunity for themselves and ultimately their athletes, and sees every learning experience as meaningful.
This Strategy supports the concept of a needs-led approach to both the content of coach education and the way it is offered. The Strategy takes into account the rapidly changing landscape in sport, and the opportunities using technology, embracing prior learning and working with a range of Partners alongside the more traditional routes and delivery methods.
The Strategy aspires to deliver fit-for-purpose coaches – coaches who deliver in a culture of self-improvement. This culture will foster coaches who have a thirst for knowledge and skills, are self-reflective and proactive, and take
ownership of their own development.
The UK Coach Education Strategy and the associated action plans aim to clarify not only which key areas of coach education may need to be addressed and prioritised, but also how this might happen. It identifies some of the key elements where consolidation of existing good practice, and further development, will provide excellent education opportunities for coaches.
The Strategy has been facilitated by sports coach UK, but is governing body-led. It aims to acknowledge the significant impact that a wide range of Partners can have on the development of coaches – coaches who are fit for purpose in a variety of coaching environments.
In particular, it aims to do this by supporting Partners to think strategically about their coach education needs.
The Strategy supports thinking more strategically about the development of coaches with the resources available. This will include shifting closer to a culture of learning where all coaches embrace and take ownership of their own learning and development. This will be done by ensuring a need-led approach to coach education programmes. This will be associated with the needs of a range of Partners, but will centre on the needs of the coach.
By working together, all relevant Partners will make the most of the available resources, while benefiting from a sector-wide partnership approach.
This strategy is evolving in 2012, with consultation with all Partners and governing bodies of sport at the centre. For Strategy papers, contact us at
Coach Education Workforce Planning
There are many benefits of investing in your coach education workforce. The quality of your coaching
qualifications and, consequently, that of your coaches will be significantly affected by the quality of the coach educators delivering to them. In short, the coach education workforce affects all aspects of the coaching system, and developing their skills to ensure they have a positive impact is vital. Since the introduction of the UKCC, there are two specific reasons why sports have invested in the development of their coach education workforce. Firstly, the UKCC endorsement criteria require sports to evidence that their trainers, tutors and assessors have either undergone a period of training that aligns with the National Occupational Standards (NOS) for Learning and Development (Lifelong Learning UK) or have been recruited based on achieving the NOS competencies in the future.
Secondly, through the UKCC, many sports have either engaged with the wider education agenda by working in partnership with awarding organisations or have developed their own awarding organisation and accredited their coaching qualifications to the QCF. Awarding organisations stipulate that, as good practice, the criteria for tutors, assessors, verifiers and trainers, when applicable, should include holding a relevant and recognised qualification themselves. Sports are also recommended to develop an appropriate learning support structure for tutors, trainers, assessors and verifiers. Mentors and technical experts are now used by a number of sports to provide individual needs-led professional development. Investing in high-quality mentors and other learning support personnel will greatly enhance the coach education workforce.
For further information on developing a high-quality coach education workforce, see page 20 of this Guide.
Establish clarity to underpin future developments in coach education in the UK.
Establish what is required to support and design needs-led, accessible and effective education delivery.
To build on the development of existing knowledge and practice to support appropriate training, coaching qualifications, CPD and specialist qualifications linked to the coach development pathway.
Establish and implement appropriate strategies and toolsto train, qualify and support quality coaches for specific sport populations.
Support the alignmentof resources available to coach education.
1
2
3
4
5
The endorsement of qualifications in the coach education programme is done through the UKCC. This is a UK-wide approach and was the result of the need to formally come together as a group of HCSC-recognised governing bodies of sport.
This group is principally known as the National Source Group (NSG), but may be recognised by individual governing bodies of sport under other names. The purpose of this group may vary, but it is expected to agree the content of all technical definitions/syllabi, assessment
specifications and technical content of qualifications that are presented for UKCC endorsement.
This group will need a Terms of Reference document outlining the purpose of the group and agreed actions. An outline Terms of Reference document is available, as is a development template titled NSG Delivery Plan Development Template. Both these documents can be adapted and used for support when setting up an NSG. To access these documents, please contact
THE UKCC LEVEL 1–3 SUPPORT GUIDE – SECOND EDITION
NATIONAL SOURCE GROUP
DEVELOPMENT
The QCF System
All qualifications that are eligible for UKCC endorsement must sit on the appropriate framework. The QCF (formerly the National Qualifications Framework [NQF]) is where the majority of coach education programmes sit. It is a
government-regulated programme and recognises skills and qualifications.
The QCF means qualifications are now awarded using a credit system across three tiers:
• Award = 1–12 credits • Certificate = 13–26 credits • Diploma = 37+ credits.
Each credit is comparable to 10 learning hours for the average learner. Therefore, an Award would be between 10 and 120 learning hours, a Certificate between 130 and 260 hours, with a Diploma consisting of over 370 hours. These hours include on- and off-course learning and tutor-guided and notional (environment-specific) hours. The credit-based system supports small steps of learning and can be flexible and enable learners to become qualified on flexible routes, often at their own pace. In terms of coaching, this system allows the governing body of sport to either have multiple paths for its coaches to become qualified or to follow one path (ie the governing body may decide initially to only create Certificate qualifications for Levels 2 and 3).
This system can be seen as an overview on the following pages.
• Level 1 – seven common units: four knowledge; three applied sport-specific units
• Level 2 – eight common units: four knowledge; four applied sport-specific units
• Level 3 – 10 common units: four knowledge; six applied sport-specific units.
These common units are the same theory-based units across any coach education programme that sits on the QCF and may be used to form the basis of accreditation of prior learning (APL) and RPL programmes for sports (see RPL section).
The sport-specific units are directly related to individual sports and their needs.
The SCQF/SQA
All qualifications that are eligible for UKCC endorsement must sit on the appropriate national education framework; in Scotland, this framework is the SCQF.
The SCQF helps to understand Scottish qualifications and is a way of talking about, and comparing, qualifications. It brings together all the mainstream Scottish qualifications and gives them credit points, which show how much learning has been achieved and how demanding the learning is. All UKCC qualifications are levelled consistently against the SCQF as follows:
• UKCC 1 (SCQF Level 4) • UKCC 2 (SCQF Level 5) • UKCC 3 (SCQF Level 6) • UKCC 4 (SCQF Level 7).
Scottish governing bodies of sport should contact sportscotland for assistance. It is recommended governing bodies engage with their home country partners via a National Source Group Forum. Once the qualification reaches the endorsement stage, it is then time to engage with the Qualifications team at SQA to ensure both unit and qualification codes are created and staff sheets and site-selection checklists are submitted. The governing body is assigned to one of four SQA-approved delivery centres from where they will access administrative support for the registration and certification of candidates.
At this time, it is also possible to engage the Scottish governing body of sport with UKCC candidate subsidy investment to lower the costs for users. For further information, please contact:
RPL
Achieving qualifications through credit
accumulation – exemption, credit transfer and RPL In recent years, there has been an increasing interest within qualifications frameworks across sport both nationally and internationally as to how to recognise individuals’ previous achievements. There are several different ways this can be considered, some of which are described below.
The QCF has been designed as a unit- and credit-based framework – underpinning this concept is the principle of
credit accumulation. Individuals who wish to achieve a qualification must accumulate these credits according to designated rules of combinationas set out within each qualification. These rules set out the requirements for defined numbers of credits to be achieved through particular units or groups of units, in order to meet the requirements of a named qualification.
In accumulating these credits, an individual has multiple options as an alternative to simply attending a course of learning and completing relevant assessment; these being through exemption, credit transfer and RPL.
In providing the opportunity for RPL, the learner needs to understand that the onus is on them to provide the evidence that they are able to demonstrate understanding of the principles of coaching in the context in which they will be assessed.
For a learner undertaking RPL, it should not be viewed as the easy, quick or cheap option, as this may not be the case.
A key principle of the QCF is that individuals should not be required to repeat things they have already learnt. This principle underpins the concept of RPL – the main focus of this section. However, it also underpins two related but different processes (exemptionand credit transfer [same and equivalent units]), which are described briefly below for context.
Exemption
Within the QCF, exemption is defined as:
the facility for a learner to claim exemption from some of the achievement requirements of a QCF qualification, using evidence of certified, non-QCF achievement deemed to be of equivalent value.
A critical distinction between exemption and RPL is that the process of exemption is applied to previous certified achievement(eg pre-QCF coaching/tutor/assessor awards, including international equivalents) obtained outside the QCF, whereas the process of RPL is applied to previously
uncertified achievement(learning only, no certification). Further guidance documentation is available from:
Within this process, the assessor must make sure the components of the certified qualification are sufficient to cover the requirements of all the learning outcomes, unit or units that it is being examined against.
Where exemption is granted, based on certified
achievement outside the QCF, no credits are awarded to the individual. Exemptions do not attract credit, as the skills knowledge and/or competences described in the unit will have already been recognised in the credit system. However, the individual’s achievements are recognised and deemed to be ‘of equivalent value’ to credits in the QCF.
Example: This process would be utilised where a coach who is in possession of an award from country A requests exemption for one or more units within a qualification, as their home nation award has been deemed equivalent to one or more of the full unitswithin the qualification of country B, or where a coach holds a historic qualification, such as those on the previous NQF, and requests exemption as their qualification (or elements of it) are deemed equivalent to one or more of the full unitswithin the QCF qualification offered.
Credit Transfer – Same Units
As the definition of ‘exemption’ makes clear, this process relates exclusively to certified learning outside the QCF. Within the QCF there exists a corresponding process referred to as credit transfer, which also attempts to reduce the incidence of learners being required to repeat learning. Although both exemption and credit transfer relate to certified learning, credit transfer specifically relates to certified learning within the QCF.
Credit transfer is the process of using credit(s) awarded in the context of one qualification or awarded by a different awarding organisation towards the achievement
requirements of another qualification. Credit transfer gives recognition to the fact that some units are the same, irrespective of the fact they appear in different qualifications. This recognition promotes progression within and between sports, and avoids unnecessary duplication of learning. The nature of the QCF supports and encourages the transfer of credits between qualifications and requires that processes exist to allow for the recognition and transfer of credits gained elsewhere.
Example: This process of credit transfer would be utilised where a coach is in possession of qualification A and wants to achieve qualification B, which is made up of one or more of the same units as those within qualification A (ie a qualified Level 1 coach from sport A wanting to gain a Level 1 qualification from sport B, where both qualifications use one or more of same core units [but in a
contextualised manner]).
Credit Transfer – Equivalent Units
The third concept associated with the acknowledgment of prior achievement/learning is to consider opportunities for credit transfer through credit from equivalent units. Equivalent units are different QCF units that, when compared, are judged to be equal to or greater than the content of another. An equivalent unit needs to be of the same credit value or higher, and the same level or higher. Equivalent units will look different, but in short the content will be deemed to be identical, or above and beyond the content required.
If a learner has achieved a QCF unit (either singly or as part of a wider qualification) and this unit is judged to be equal to or greater than the content of a unit in a qualification they want to achieve, then the unit they want to acheive can be claimed on the basis of having previously achieved an equivalent unit.
The identification of equivalent units within QCF rules of combination enables learners to show they have already achieved part of a qualification through credits awarded towards a different qualification, which may be offered by a different recognised awarding organisation. This helps support the transfer of achievement and reduces the assessment burden.
Example: This process of credit transfer would be utilised where a coach is in possession of one or more units of equivalent value to those within qualification B as a consequence of achieving qualification C (perhaps of a higher level). For instance, a Level 2 qualified coach from within sport C wanting to gain a Level 1 qualification within sport B (where core units are equal to or greater than the content of those within the qualification they want to achieve).
Neither credit transfer process will attract additional credit, as the skills knowledge and/or competences described in the unit will have already been recognised in the credit system.
More information about the operation of exemption and credit transfer (same and equivalent units) on the QCF is available in Guidance for Developing Rules of Combination for the Qualifications and Credit Framework (QCA/10/4727). Please note both exemption and credit transfer are separate processes from RPL, and awarding organisation systems need to reflect these distinctions. It should also be noted that there is no concept of ‘partial achievement of a unit’ on the QCF. All the learning outcomes of a unit must be achieved for credit(s) to be awarded. There is no facility to claim or be awarded some of the credits in a unit. Definition of RPL in the QCF
RPL is a form of assessment that makes use of evidence of a learner’s previous non-certificated achievementsto demonstrate competence or achievement within a unit or qualification. The regulatory arrangements for the QCF define RPL as follows:
A method of assessment that considers whether a learner can demonstrate that they can meet the assessment requirements for a unit through knowledge, understanding or skills they already possess and do not need to develop through a course of learning.
Note: This process is referred to as ‘the accreditation of prior learning’, ‘the recognition of experiential learning’ or ‘the validation of informal learning’ in different frameworks in different countries.
In the context of the QCF, the definition of RPL is quite specific and relates to assessment leading to the award of credit. Assessment for RPL is conducted against the learning outcomes and assessment criteria of a unit, and is subject to exactly the same quality assurance requirements as any other kind of assessment within the QCF.
The Requirements of Awarding Organisations and Recognised Centres
All QCF awarding organisations must be able to offer assessment through RPL, and all recognised centres must be capable of operating an RPL process. ‘We don’t offer RPL’ is not an acceptable position to adopt. However, this does not mean that all individuals must be offered RPL in all cases, but does mean that awarding organisations must be able to make an offer of assessment through RPL,
where appropriate.
The system must meet the needs of individual learners and offer choices of routes to achievement and opportunities for progression. In effect, RPL should be an individual-centred approach to recognising achievements. Where an individual
wishes to ‘claim credit’ for prior learning, awarding
organisations must be able to respond positively. However, it should be noted that the onus is on the learner to provide
evidenceof their previous learning in an agreed format. If they are unable to do this, RPL is not an option.
When to Use RPL
The RPL process is relevant where an individual has evidence of having previously learnt something but has never received formal recognition for it through a qualification or other form of certification. The knowledge, understanding and/or skills in question may have been acquired in any area of life (eg domestic/family life,
education and training, work-related activities, or community or voluntary activities). Therefore evidence can draw on any aspect of a learner’s prior experience.
Within the QCF an individual is able to ‘claim’ that they know or can do something already and do not need to attend a course to learn it again. If an individual can prove their claim (through assessment of relevant evidence) then credit can be awarded for that achievement in the same way as any other credits.
Some of the people who may apply for RPL might include: • coaches with qualifications from other sports
• coaching degree students • high-performance athletes
• coaches with international qualifications. Undertaking RPL and the RPL Process
Centres wishing to undertake RPL must ensure it is carried out by designated staff with relevant levels of expertise to meet the requirements of the assessment strategy/guidance for the qualification concerned. The methods of assessment used will be determined by the assessment strategy for the qualification being assessed, but might include:
• examination of documents • witness testimony
• reflective accounts • professional discussion.
The RPL assessment should be carried out as an entire process. This means that the assessor should undertake the following stages:
• Stage 1– General awareness about claiming credit – provide information, advice and guidance.
• Stage 2– Pre-assessment – plan with the learner the gathering of evidence and submission of information. • Stage 3– Assessment of documentation/evidence –
make a formal assessment decision based on information provided.
• Stage 4– Feedback – feed back assessment decisions to the learner, confirming decision and giving guidance on the available options (particularly in situations where the decision has been not to award credit).
• Stage 5– Awarding credit – maintain appropriate records.
• Stage 6– Appeal – ensure learners are aware of their right to access the appeals process should they feel the assessment decision was unfair.
The assessor mustensure all learning outcomes and assessment criteria being claimed are covered, and that records of assessment are maintained in the usual way. The process must be subject to the same quality assurance requirements as any other assessment method. Assessment of RPL Evidence
RPL is one of many assessment methods permissible on the QCF. Evidence obtained through RPL must therefore meet the same rigorous quality criteria that other assessment methods must conform to. It remains the role of assessors and quality assurance staff to ensure that evidence is: • valid– does the evidence genuinely demonstrate that
the demands of the learning outcome have been met • current– does the evidence meet current demands or is
it representative of practice that has significantly changed • authentic– is the evidence being examined the genuine
work of the learner
• sufficient– is there enough evidence to fully meet the requirements of the learning outcome(s) being considered
• reliable– is the evidence obtained through RPL such that an assessor would arrive at the same assessment decision were the assessment to be repeated?
If there is insufficient evidence to fully meet requirements, then evidence obtained through RPL must be
complemented by evidence gained through other suitable assessment method(s) before requirements can be said to have been met.
Outcomes of RPL
Within the QCF, if individuals can produce relevant evidence that meets learning outcome requirements, recognition can be given for their existing knowledge, understanding or skills.
However, it is recognised that learners are unlikely to have all the evidence they need to achieve a full unit and may need to produce additional evidence. Therefore, RPL may be used in conjunction with other assessment methods, such as examination of recent products, professional discussion, or observation, to assess current performance.
If evidence from RPL is only sufficient to cover one or more learning outcomes, or to partly meet the need of a learning outcome, then additional assessment methods should be employed to generate the evidence required to make a safe assessment decision.
Funding for RPL
In terms of funding, the Skills Funding Agency states:
The current policy is that a reduction in funding is expected only where 50% or more of the assessment is carried out through RPL, and there is a 50% reduction in funding for those parts of the qualification achieved through RPL.
For publicly funded programmes of training, this means that where RPL accounts for half or over half of the evidence generated for a unit, the specific unit or units concerned will see a 50% reduction in funding. It should be noted that the reduction would not apply to the whole qualification in general, but is applied in relation to the proportion of the qualification for which RPL has been used.
The Benefits of RPL to Sports
• The learner is able to show where learning has previously taken place.
• It can contribute and show commitment to workforce development.
• It improves retention of staff. • It recognises vocational learning.
• It recognises highly experienced but, as yet, unqualified coaches.
• It attracts a new market of learners by making qualifications more accessible.
In addition, it may help sports recognise skills, knowledge and competences important to their context, address skills shortages and gaps, and contribute to career development systems and coach development, increasing the highly skilled and highly qualified workforce.
Benefits of RPL to Learner
• It recognises the skills and/or knowledge an individual already has.
• It avoids duplication of learning.
• Learners avoid having to relearn knowledge or skills they have already learnt, in order to progress in a role or career.
• It saves time (but not necessarily money). • It gains RPL without having to participate in a
learning programme.
• A shorter time is spent on becoming qualified.
Additionally, it may be used as a mechanism for those returning to the workplace, as a way to check whether their skills are up to date or whether they need some further learning or achievement to progress within, or re-enter, the workplace.
Finally, sports may be motivated to provide RPL to offer more individualised learning pathways to enable more inclusive provision and raise the retention and success rate of individuals and attract new groups of individuals. Note: When developing a coach education business plan, the cost of RPL to the learner should be included. The learner is still subject to an assessment and staff time, and it should therefore be a service that is provided at a cost, as with any other type of assessment.
Business Planning
Coaches often find themselves in diverse environments. This can be different venues, or with different participants and performers with a range of goals. With this diversity comes the need for coaches to possess an increasing range of skills. One of these skill sets is business planning. This is the development and implementation of goals, strategies, plans and tools to support the achievement of the coaches’ goals. Many coaches already plan their coaching sessions, their coaching programmes and, in some cases, competition schedules. While many of these planning principles will remain the same, business planning may have slightly different end outcomes other than the development of the participant and performance.
For example, the focus for business planning might be the: • growth and sustainability of a personal business • growth and sustainability of a club/employer • increase in effectiveness and efficiency of
coaching programmes.
Some coaches may not have an obvious need for business planning so it is important for the coach to identify their coaching environments and complete a training needs analysis (TNA) to clarify what skills they need.
Different sports also have different cultures. As a result, it might be that some of these business skills have already been identified by the governing body of sport and integrated into training programmes and qualifications that require these business planning skills.
It is more likely that coaches who are qualified to Level 2 and above are more likely to need these sorts of skills. The business skills a coach might need to develop include: • business start-up
• sales
• marketing • customer service
• financial planning and projection • tax and payroll
• health and safety • eCommerce.
Further support for coaches around business planning is something currently being considered by sports coach UK. In the meantime, generic support can be accessed at the government-supported Business Link website –
www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/home
Coach Education Costings
and Efficiency Tool Kit
Due to the complex and diverse nature of coach education programmes, it can be difficult to identify the real cost of developing and running them. While there has been intelligence gathering in this area over the life of the UKCC, it has traditionally been difficult to obtain accurate
information on the costings due to the diversity of sports’ approach and delivery models. It was felt that this area in particular, due to its contentious nature, should warrant more detailed research based on the costs associated with delivering either a UKCC-endorsed programme or one that is looking to become UKCC endorsed. A tool kit has been developed to help governing bodies of sport identify what these costs might be, and the figures can be used to evolve programmes that are robust, effective and efficient. Purpose of the Tool Kit
The tool kit is aimed at a range of Partners. It can be used by:
• governing bodies of sport that are reviewing or rewriting their coach education programmes to identify where their costs currently lie, and where efficiencies may be developed
• governing bodies of sport that are in the process of developing their coach education programmes against the UKCC development framework to identify potential costings
• internal sports coach UK staff as part of training programme inductions
• HCSCs to help support sports to make the most of available funding.
In essence, the purpose of the tool kit is to help to: • raise awareness of where costs are being incurred and
• allow for the development of a balanced and informed business model associated with the programme • identify and share good practice across coaching and
home countries.
The tool kit is available by emailing [email protected]
Cost Minimisation
The areas identified in this document can be explored with sports regarding the minimisation of costs associated with the coach education programmes.
These areas are: • coach developers • induction
• on-course coaching opportunities
• off-course coaching opportunities and support • assessment
• resource production.
It should be noted that these are not the only areas where costs could be reduced or minimised, but they can be used as a guide. This document will be evolved further to take account of further developments in this area.
This will not be a one-size-fits-all approach and therefore some of the suggestions below will be inappropriate for some sports. A range of factors will need to be considered, such as governing body of sport commitment to coach education, the need to generate income, and the throughput of learning coaches through the system.
The developments are suggested for the UKCC-endorsed programmes, but could be used for other training packages and CPD opportunities offered by governing bodies of sport.
Most of the areas below are looking at the costs that come about either from strategic decisions that are made about the holistic governing body coach education programme, or decisions which are made on a course-by-course basis. Both of these areas may have an implication for costs.
While the suggestions below could have a positive impact on the minimisation of financial costs, it should be noted that decisions may have other implications. For example, where a decision is made to increase the number of learners to coach educators, the potential impact on learners should be considered.
These suggestions will allow for a consideration of the current costs in light of the learner’s experience, and which cost minimisation measures are appropriate for a governing body of sport to take.
The combination of a number of suggestions may have additional implications (eg the increase of tutor:learner ratio and a change in the nature of the induction programme), which should be explored.
Regarding the perception of cost to learners, many people focus on the on-course elements often referred to as the
face-to-facepart of the course. There should be a
commitment to a whole-programmeapproach to the costs, in support of the perception that a programme is the duration of the qualification (and potentially beyond). In short, the costs associated with the programme should be seen as a charge for the 6–8-week duration (for example) rather than for the 3–4 days of face-to-face contact with coach developers.
Coach Developers
This area looks at those who support the learning coach, such as coach educators, coach assessors and mentors. An appropriately skilled coach developer workforce is a key factor in the success of any coach education programme. One key area that should be looked at is effective workforce planning, both in terms of coaches and coach developers. Knowing where coaches are needed, and what skills they require, will help forward planning to ensure there is an optimum number of coach developers available. • Consideration could be given to the level of initial
training and qualification required by the governing body of sport. While sports coach UK would support the concept of the coach developers being qualified to an appropriate level, it may be that this is something the coach developers aspire to once they are delivering the programme. For example, prior to delivering on the
programme, it might be that coach educators should have had a period of training aligned to the relevant standards, but that the coach developer is working towardsthe appropriate qualifications.
• If a governing body of sport can identify those within its coaching/coach developer workforce who already have the basis of education (eg teachers) and, specifically, adult education (eg lecturers), they could take advantage of this skill set and use APL to help achieve qualifications or fast-track the right individuals to be able to deliver on the appropriate programmes.
• One option could be to increase the ratio of learners to trainers on those programmes aimed at supporting and qualifying coach developers; for example, looking for a 1:12 ratio as part of the coach developer programme. It should be noted that this will inevitably have an impact on the learners’ experience, and the learning programme for the coach developers will need to be evolved in line with the new ratio.
• Linked to the above suggestion, delivery of the
programmes could utilise a successive model that looks at a fully qualified tutor supported by someone working towards their qualification. This could allow more learning coaches to attend the programme and help with the ongoing training/CPD of the workforce.
• Aligned to the nature of the learning programme (and potentially off-course support mechanisms), certain tutors could be supported to lead on any distance learning/eLearning package that might be used to support learners. While this may require a short-term investment, it may allow for a potential reduction in face-to-face contact for some of the programmes. • The development of a licence for coach developers
could be used to potentially generate income if CPD opportunities are charged to attendees. This may only be appropriate for certain sports/situations where the coach developers are well paid.
• Linked into the workforce development plans and technical needs of the coach education programme, there could be a targeted approach to recruiting and developing specialist tutors. This would be long term, but could allow a targeted approach to technical skills as well as geographical location (thereby reducing the number of tutors).
• Regarding the delivery of the coach developer
qualifications, relationships with colleges and other sports may help in terms of funding the programmes and economies of scale.
• The concept of employing centrally contracted tutors is something that might be considered to reduce costs. This would require good workforce planning and knowing where coaches are needed (along with which skills are needed).
• A final, yet simple, cost minimisation strategy might be to pay coach developers less. This obviously has issues associated with it and should be considered with caution if the governing body of sport has a high-quality coach developer workforce.
Induction
The induction process associated with the learning
programme provides an opportunity to ensure the delivery of the programme is truly learner-centred. The induction can cover a whole host of areas, including application forms, registration, needs profiling and action planning. These areas can be covered in a range of ways, some of which might be on course, and some of which might be off course. Below are some suggested strategies to minimise the costs associated with this part of the process. Many of these suggestions are aimed at freeing up delivery time and completing tasks on the induction that are currently covered on course. This could lead to less ‘expensive’ time in front of coach educators in venues that have been booked at a cost. It could be that the sport follows some of these suggestions and then uses the time for coaching practice, technical delivery etc.
• Ensure the coach educator has the relevant information from the application forms prior to the start of delivery. This will allow the coach educator to be aware of the knowledge, experience and qualifications of the learning coaches, and will provide some further value to their experiences.
• The profiling of learners could be done prior to the initial face-to-face element of the programme. If the coaches are supported to achieve this profiling (possibly by electronic media) prior to attending the programme, the coach educator would be able to offer further value (see above), and also would be able to use the time currently used for profiling to support coaching practice.
• To remove the need to cover housekeeping on the first day of the programme, the details of assessment and learning programme structure could be made available prior to the course starting. This would allow for reduced time going through this on the course; however, there would still need to be time for the coach educators to check understanding and answer questions.
• Initial discussions could be had online; for example, an initial seminar including an introduction to the tutors. This could be supported by off-course support mechanisms such as a forum on Facebook.
• There may be areas of technical development that could be looked at and completed prior to the face-to-face element of the course starting. This could include pre-reading, eLearning, and helping the learner identify their philosophy for their coaching role.
• Arranging for learner registration online may reduce the administrative burden and associated costs for
governing bodies.
• Additionally, it might be possible to combine more than one course for the induction element. This might be possible if the programme has a separate induction, or if there is more than one programme taking place at the same venue.
On-course Coaching Opportunities
The provision of coaching opportunities is an integral element of UKCC-endorsed programmes. This is based on the concept of coaches learning from having the
opportunity to coach in a safeenvironment. Safe means away from unconstructive judgement, as well as physically safe. Some of the suggestions below may allow for the reduction of costs in some of these areas.
• The coaching opportunities could be moved to a predominantly off-course mechanism. While sports coach UK would always suggest there should be some
on-course coaching practice, where there is an appropriate support mechanism (club-based, mentors etc), the coaching practice could be managed off course. While this may reduce the costs of this element of the programme (as tutor and venue costs will be reduced), there will need to be an investment in those coach developers working in the club network.
• The learning programme could be very prescriptive about the timings for coaching practice, and this would be reflected in the facilities booked. While this may mean less flexibility in the learning programme, it would only be based around the booking times, and therefore coach educators could be flexible within booking times. This could potentially reduce the facility hire costs, as only the relevant facilities would be booked.
• The development of structured micro-coaching would allow for increased coaching opportunities over a shorter period of time. For example, providing learning activities and feedback using smaller groups of learners (eg fours) rather than larger groups (eg eights), which would provide the same number of opportunities in a shorter amount of time. A key consideration here would be the nature of the role of the coach, as this should not be compromised. For example, a coach should still have the opportunity to coach full-sided sport, if appropriate. • Where there is a significant local demand for the
programmes, there could be a combination of two
cohorts (see induction suggestions). This would mean a larger group could make the most of the facilities booked. Again, the practicalities of the learning activities would be dictated by the role of the coach.
• Where fixed facility costs are high, an additional tutor could be recruited to increase the number of learners against the cost of the facility.
• Where possible, a local facilities agreement could be reached (eg two places for free/reduced price facilities). Greenwich Leisure Limited (GLL) is offering a 20% discount for coach education programmes booked in their facilities in west London. If this pilot is used it is hoped this could be expanded to other GLL facilities. Off-course Coaching Opportunities and Support As previously mentioned, the opportunities to practise coaching are an integral part of UKCC-endorsed programmes. Where this is offered away from the formal part of the course, there will be a further need to provide support mechanisms. There is no suggestion that coaching practice should be used. The following points look at ways to reduce some of the costs linked to this area.
• Where the off-course support is face-to-face, the use of technology could be considered; for example, the option to have support via phone or email. Where a further level of interaction is required, Skype might be of use. Where group interaction would be beneficial, Facebook or Twitter could be used. There could also be interaction using video footage of coaching.
• Off-course support could be provided in a different format. For example, if using an external mentor, could you use peer support or someone in the learners’ existing club environment? Obviously, these coach developers would require some further guidance or support.
• If human costs are proving significant, consideration could be given to how resources/tools could support the learner.
• There may be opportunities to reduce costs by having a central point of contact for technical support within the governing body of sport.
• Linked to the above point, there may be potential for off-course support being provided on a needs-led basis. The learner could contact the governing body of sport for support if required, and further support can be identified from there if necessary. This support could be offered by coach developers who are paid to provide the support (at a nominal fee).
Assessment
The summative assessment is an integral part of the programme. UKCC-endorsed programmes are engaged
with the relevant national qualifications frameworks, which require quality assured assessment. Any amendments to the summative assessment will need to be made in conjunction with the relevant awarding organisations. Some suggestions for cost minimisation are identified below.
• One way of minimising costs is to hold specific assessment days where the learners come to a central venue that a number of cohorts could attend. This might reduce the facility costs, although it is likely the staffing of coach assessors will remain the same.
• One way of reducing costs would be to reduce assessor fees, or not make them so high to start with. This should be treated with caution.
• A programme of training assessors within clubs could be embarked upon. While this may require some investment in the short term, it could reduce long-term costs and potentially increase retention/achievement rates.
• Similarly, mentors could log sessions and sign the sessions off, and potentially provide witness statements for elements of assessment traditionally identified as part of the summative assessment.
• Some sports have chosen to remove independent assessment. While this might reduce the costs of the programme, there should be some reflection in the increased robustness of the internal verification processes, which may cost more.
• Another strategy could be to reduce the proposed practical assessment time where this does not have an affect on the robustness of developments.
• Where possible, group assessments could be done; however, this would depend on the appropriateness of the assessment criteria.
• A regional infrastructure of assessor hubs could be created, which would allow an assessor network to be developed. This may involve sharing assessor roles across a number of clubs. This would also help reduce the expenses associated with the programme. • Video assessment could be considered where the
infrastructure is available. Even where a number of the learning coaches would like to use this as an option, it may reduce the costs (especially in programmes where assessors are assessing in the club environment). Action planning/feedback could be completed using Skype/Viber (on iPhone).
Resource Production
The learning process is often supported by a range of resources. There are a number of elements that could be considered to reduce costs. As with the other areas, consideration should be given to learners’ experience. • The size and nature of the resource (eg A4, A5 etc)
should be considered, including how the resource would be used (eg will coaches take it on to the field?). • Consideration could be given to the print run, linked to
the review of the resources.
• Shopping around to ensure a good deal is a simple, yet potentially effective, way of reducing costs.
• The aesthetics of the resource should be considered; for example, colour versus black and white, or part colour. Depending on the format of the resource, this could minimise costs.
• The nature of paper resources should be considered. For example, a book may require a full reprint, whereas a folder may allow for reprinting sections and
providing additions.
• Consideration could be given to the resources. For example, are they to be CD-based (with the learners able to print off and use them as appropriate), or could they be web-based (which could be used as an
opportunity to market further information for additional income)?
• While it would not minimise the costs of the resource development/publication, finding a sponsor would be something that could offset the costs.
• Using in-house editors might be something that could reduce costs.
• One suggestion would be a folder for all governing body of sport qualifications, which adds information (eg Level 1 folder, and Levels 2 and 3 inserts). If learners have a folder with sections available for subsequent levels, this may encourage them to look at attending further courses.
