PDA

View Full Version : ACF needs to talk tough



firegoat7
08-02-2004, 06:46 PM
Hello everyone,


The 1990's and 2000's have been very successful in regards to junior coaching in Australia. However one thing that annoys me with chess is the lack of regulation regarding coaches.

As a parent of two young boys I am concerned that the ACF does not appear to do enough to allow parents to make informed decisions regarding their childs coaches. May I suggest that all chess coaches ought to be registered with the ACF. Furthermore the ACF should refuse to sanction any organisation that does not use 'official' ACF coaches. I also firmly believe that the ACF should establish a complaints tribunal for parents to register their concerns about dubious coaches. Hopefully this tribunal would be empowered to 'act' upon these complaints.

Regards FG7

paulb
08-02-2004, 10:41 PM
Matthew Sweeney has done a lot of work on this question, including writing up a recommendation. Might be worth talking to him.

WBA
08-02-2004, 10:54 PM
The problem I have here is that the ACF has no right to restrict the trade of coaches. What if someone is not a member of a chess club, and has no intention of becoming one? Why the ACF? Why shoudl independent coaches have to pay a yearly fee to the ACF? What are you proposing the ACF does for the individual? I mean there is a lot to be considered. If however it was suggested that this was to be the case in Affiliated Chess Clubs, I might be closer to agreeing, but how can the ACF try and restrict the trade in schools? All schools should be requesting police checks for any student working in their environment, that is their resposibility to the students and parents. I am against handing exta power to the ACF. Take the following for example

The ACF adopts this option, and a few years down the track realises in is more viable to hand this duty to the states, who will be adequately compensated. Then a member of the state organisation happens to run a large Junior chess coaching business, and whilst sitting on the commitee is able to make decisions on whether or not their rival's coaches should or should not be registered. I would like to chink all admin are honest people bleeding for the game, but alas that is not the case.

I think opening this can of worms could create a monster, akin to the cane toad, and rabbit introductions.

Anyway just my two bob worth

firegoat7
08-02-2004, 11:14 PM
Dear WBA,

Whilst I understand your concerns I think that the ACF as a governing body is the lesser of two evils.

The point you make about certain individuals having to much power in Australian chess is a fair criticism. However for any institution such as the ACF to be accepted as a legitimate authority, then that institution has to be accountable for its actions. A strong institution would simply not allow such a 'conflict of interest' to occur. It would have rules and regulations that prevent such a scenario.

Furthermore I think a deregulated industry like we have at the moment is a serious time bomb. It only takes one cowboy to ruin a fledgling industry for everybody. The ACF appears to be the logical contender to regulate this industry.


I suppose if I was addressing the issue I would have a good look at music. In music people actually have to be qualified to teach, it becomes irrelevant if they are a competant musician without qualifications. I think chess ought to head down the same path.

Obviously, chess is not taught at university, but that is no reason to suggest that it eventually should be. Almost anybody from East european origin will be reliably able to inform you that being a chess coach was a serious pursuit in Eastern europe. I for one have witnessed these programs first hand. Prehaps the ACF could look at ways of initiating a program that eventually reached these lofty heights. A gradual implementation over a number of years.

As for restraint of trade for unregistered coaches. I say tough luck, register you scab or get struck out of schools. As long as the ACF handles this sort of issue maturely I see no problem in actually getting schools to realise that it is in their best interests to have accredited coaches.

regards FG7

WBA
08-02-2004, 11:26 PM
I say tough luck, register you scab or get struck out of schools.

See this is actually the crux of the situation, I do not feel the need for people to have to register, and I certainly do not trust current bodies to take this on. Also this needs to be approved through the channels, and I doubt it wil be, unless chess starts becoming more than just a past time. Take for example self - defense, many reputable and not so reputable groups teach or give these demonstrations in schools without the need to join a regulatory body, and I believe they should be able to continue doing this. What then happens in a country school? Farmer Jack is a handy player, having played CC for a number of years, and is going to coach at the local primary school. He finds out to do this he needs to register with the ACF, and decides he does do not want to go through this registration process, for such a paltry amount of work, but option B means no chess in Lismore Primary, because no one else has the capabilities. So in the end the school misses out.

I agree there ae problems with the current setup, but I am not overly sure I want the ACF (and then potentially the states down the track), to take this over. I am saying this as a parent and not as a person who makes any financial gain out of chess, because I do not.

Anyway I think you have raised some point swell worth discussing, and I am pretty sure we will continue this in the club

Cheers

WBA

ursogr8
09-02-2004, 07:46 AM
.....and whilst sitting on the commitee is able to make decisions on whether or not their rival's coaches should or should not be registered.
I think opening this ...rabbit introductions.

Anyway just my two bob worth


WBA

Matthew Sweeney's paper covers all your apprehensions more than adequately.Suggest you get a copy from him and read.

starter

ursogr8
09-02-2004, 08:10 AM
Dear WBA,

Whilst I understand your concerns I think that the ACF as a governing body is the lesser of two evils.

The point you make about certain individuals having to much power in Australian chess is a fair criticism. However for any institution such as the ACF to be accepted as a legitimate authority, then that institution has to be accountable for its actions. A strong institution would simply not allow such a 'conflict of interest' to occur. It would have rules and regulations that prevent such a scenario.

Furthermore I think a deregulated industry like we have at the moment is a serious time bomb. It only takes one cowboy to ruin a fledgling industry for everybody. The ACF appears to be the logical contender to regulate this industry.


I suppose if I was addressing the issue I would have a good look at music. In music people actually have to be qualified to teach, it becomes irrelevant if they are a competant musician without qualifications. I think chess ought to head down the same path.

Obviously, chess is not taught at university, but that is no reason to suggest that it eventually should be. Almost anybody from East european origin will be reliably able to inform you that being a chess coach was a serious pursuit in Eastern europe. I for one have witnessed these programs first hand. Prehaps the ACF could look at ways of initiating a program that eventually reached these lofty heights. A gradual implementation over a number of years.

As for restraint of trade for unregistered coaches. I say tough luck, register you scab or get struck out of schools. As long as the ACF handles this sort of issue maturely I see no problem in actually getting schools to realise that it is in their best interests to have accredited coaches.

regards FG7

FG7

You will find nearly all your proposals consistent with Matthew Sweeney's paper.
It is an issue that Box Hill explored last year as we found we had 11 coaches using our premises one way or another. Our insurance and our responsibilities to parents had to be re-evaluated; and a certification by an independent body is definitely the best part of Matthew's proposals.

starter