Coach Certification Comments

The following remarks are excerpted from both private email messages and Dr. Ken Sloan’s scholastic group at [email protected]. To review the current proposed coach certification program, go to http://www.chess.isgenius.com/.

I believe that the chess coach certification program, in it's current state, is woefully inadequate, and I have been thinking about ways in which the USCF could improve this program. —Tom Brownscombe [[email protected]]

Our mission should be to provide practical professional development along with a credential that will mean something to school administrators. —Bob Ferguson [[email protected]]

What is the goal of the coach certification program? Coaches hold the key to a better chess experience. They are teachers and motivators. They build character and strengthen self-esteem. At least these are the ideals we imagine. The truth is many coaches lack the training and experience necessary to juggle these traits and coach at the same time.

All coaches want to win, but successful coaching means much more than just winning games. To be truly successful, coaches must know how to teach young people the techniques and skills of chess as well as the values and skills they need to be successful in life. Today’s coaches, veterans as well as rookies, also need to be able to handle problems that require them to be part risk manager, part counselor, as well as part teacher. All of these responsibilities and demands placed on coaches are what make coaching education so important. To succeed, coaches need as much knowledge as they can get, because good intentions alone are not enough.

I'm sure others can add additional components. Please visit the website at www.chess.isgenius.com to review the current proposal. —Bob Ferguson

I believe Israel has long required chess coaches to receive training before they are allowed to teach / coach in the schools. What skills do they require their coaches to learn? Are there other countries that require training? —Bob Ferguson [[email protected]]

Back when I was instructing at the school system in Israel (early to mid 80's) and certainly before that, instructors were required to pass courses to be able to coach (the level of coaching also had a significant affect on one's salary). These courses dealt with all aspects of teaching from suggested methods and approaches to psychology. Experienced coaches lectured and at the end of the course you'd be certified. At the time there were: Instructor, certified instructor, senior certified instructor and senior coach. —FM Aviv Friedman

I asked a few follow-up questions... —Bob Ferguson

These are tough questions 20 year of lifetime later :) But let me try:

>How many hours did the courses last? The days were quite full with different topics lectured by different experts. I want to say 5-7 a day.

>Did they use a textbook? Not that I can recall although if my memory doesn't betray me, years later reading the magazine I thought I read of some writing or have written or plans to write an instructional text book.

>Did an experienced coach watch you teach? I only recall an in class simulation with supervision.

>Did they give you a credential/certificate that you had to show to a school
>in order to teach? Not only to the school but to their payroll! Your classification depended on your certificate and experience.

I don't think essay questions will tell you how a coach will behave toward his students.

So, I think objective questions about TD and coach rules (like how to submit team line-ups, how to check pairings for your students, how to read a wallchart, how to calculate tiebreaks, what are the parts of an acceptable field trip permission form, etc.) should comprise the test. I don't see the need for an essay test, standing committee, or an ADM.

If we are serious about implementing the coach certification plan, let's keep its objectives and its implementation simple and logical. —Dr. Alexey Root [[email protected]]

While I support the general concept of coach certification, I don't believe there is a workable method of accomplishing the goals. As others are noting, it is very difficult to measure the skills necessary to be an effective coach. Coaches have vastly varied styles. Some coaches use various literature to help their students. I strongly discourage the use of any chess books until my students reach expert strength, and even then we use very few of them. Some coaches teach openings, I do not. Some urge their students to enter state and national championships, and others do not. Some coaches have their students learn chess notation at a very early stage of development while others wait until much later. Some coaches use chess as a tool for at-risk children, while others have a very elite clientele and as such those two groups have developed quite varied approaches to the game. Some coaches trash-talk to their students while others remain dignified. I do not believe that a consensus would be reached as to which approaches should be recognized and certified and which approaches are merely refined child abuse.

If you use factors that can be tested, such as tournament rules, you are effectively saying that being a good coach is interchangeable with being a good tournament director, and I don't think that's the case.

Requiring that the coaches have an academic background that includes education classes would exclude many good (and some awful) chess coaches. Using tournament results to decide who is qualified to be a coach also raises myriad questions and problems. I would have a lot of difficulty having anyone pass judgment on my fitness to be a coach.

Similarly, I'm not sure I'd be willing to pay a fee to have an agency whose ability to perform such chores as accurately rating tournaments has been called into serious question certify my competence. —David Mehler [[email protected]]

Agreed, but I believe that we are being asked here to come up with some metrics that do this "very difficult" and ultimately imperfect job as well as possible -- so let's try.

Fair enough; I too rarely use books except with kids who are very advanced (state grade championship level) for their age, and additionally are of disposition such that they're likely to use the resource rather than stick it on a shelf. But wouldn't you agree that one part of coaching erudition is knowing enough *about* chess books that you can make informed decisions whether to use them or not? Furthermore, to go back to the phrasing of my question, I suspect that *you* use books even if the *kids* don't, right? E.g. if you're teaching combinative themes involving "windmills," you might pull out a book or magazine that contains the famous Torre-Lasker game where Torre sacs his queen so that his rook can eat everything in sight. It's instructive; it's also amusing so that it engages kids; and *you* saw it in a book somewhere, even if it's a book you'll never use with your kids directly.

My point on this particular example is that a coach who knows about the literature, but chooses not to expect his kids to read it, is more capable of making informed coaching decisions than one who doesn't know the literature at all. I suspect that examples on other topics can be found if we put our minds to it, and the resulting exam actually could be useful in helping sort out coaching levels -- if there is any value to setting such levels at all, an issue on which I still haven't seen adequate justification. —Bill Johnson

The fundamental chess knowledge a coach needs to teach the majority of children is easy to test and acquire. But what distinguishes the good coaches from the bad are behavior management, motivating techniques, lesson preparation, and lecture style. But is there a way to paper test a person's ability in these non-chess factors? I like the idea of using essay questions. For example, "John, an 8 year old boy, is upset because he lost his 2nd game in a row. How can you encourage John?" or "Explain how you would conduct a lecture on mating with K+Q vs. K." Unfortunately, these tests will be harder to grade and might place too much emphasis on the candidate's writing ability, but I still think its better than the alternatives. Also, the candidate should have a certain number of referrals from other certified coaches or administrators of the schools, libraries, camps, etc where he has previously conducted chess programs before he can sit for the test. –Brian Karen [[email protected]]

>One problem that many coaches face is discipline. Should this topic be included?

I personally vote no, on the grounds that there is no "right" answer for discipline questions (even if you have all of the facts, things are rarely clear-cut, and a test question can't give all of the facts) and the test should be as objective as possible with unambiguously "right" answers. This

principle should extend to other possible questions where the "right" answer is subjective.

One thing that it might be nice to investigate is how much the coach knows about various instructional aids. "Name and describe up to three books or other teaching tools that you use, and summarize the level of player for whom they are appropriate" or something like that. This would have the dual benefit of assessing coaches' knowledge of the subject, and alerting the

real beginning coaches to the existence of resources they don't know much about. –The Johnson Family [[email protected]]

I think there is another issue that should be carefully considered as well. Especially given that chess coaches work with children, the concept of "certifying" them could open USCF to undesirable legal liability. Suppose (heaven forbid) a certified chess coach molests a child, and a parent raises the issue: "But YOU certified him..." I think that to be thorough in this area, we need to consult our legal advisor on how to minimize this type of liability. For example, is there a standard disclaimer that should always accompany the use of the term "USCF Certified Chess Coach"? We should also consider whether it is necessary to have a form where the coach clearly releases USCF from liability incurred in his/her capacity as a chess coach. —Kevin L. Bachler [[email protected]]

I contacted the law office of Welch, Gold, & Siegel (Suite 1240 Lawyers Building, 428 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA) to discuss the liability issue. They stated that certification of coaches is like earning a degree from a college and does not imply liability. We are not certifying an individual’s integrity. We just need to state what our course requirements are for an individual to become certified. They felt a disclaimer was not necessary. —Bob Ferguson [[email protected]]

I have a couple of questions about the proposed certified chess coach program. What is it for? Does this mean you can not have a team at your school if you do not have a certified coach? Even with 7 years of coaching, organizing, and directing scholastic events I do not even qualify for certification as a local chess coach. What schools if any have classes on chess? What is the test for a coach about? Is it available now? If I am correct who can qualify? Not many, at least not in my state anyway. Only one person in South Carolina would qualify by these standards. —Mike Spohn [[email protected]]

These are very good questions. I believe that the intent of a revamped and an expanded certification program is to provide people looking for chess coaches with more information about prospective candidates. Those involved in Scholastic Chess probably know many or most of the nationally renowned coaches. But many school administrators do not. There are also some very good but unknown people in small towns doing great jobs. Some coaches are extremely good at teaching young children and explaining the basic chess ideas in a simplified and understandable way to young minds, although they may not be very strong chessplayers, themselves. Other coaches may be quite strong as players and understand and are able to explain sophisticated chess positions to strong young players. Rating can give us some indication of a coach's abilities. Length of service and the achievement levels of students can tell us more. Happy and contented parents are also a clue as to a coaches qualifications. But finding some way to standardize the process and provide more definitive information about a coaches qualifications for those who may not know him or her can be helpful to many looking for specific skills. Tom's proposal may not provide everything we need to know, but I believe it is an excellent start. It should be informative not exclusionary. When I was coaching at an elementary school and sending my students to a junior high where a friend of mine continued developing them, we won 3 straight National Championships at the junior high school. Then the coach of that team quit. Another man with no coaching and no tournament experience took the job. He had only one skill. He worked his butt off and drove his students to tournaments everywhere, bought them every chess book he thought would help, and asked everyone's opinion he met in the chess circles. His school won the National Championship the next 4 years without missing a beat.

I agree with Beatriz. We don't want to turn any volunteer away. But as someone who hires chess coaches to teach in 10 Philadelphia Schools, I can tell you it is also very useful to have as much information as possible about a person before hiring them, short of fingerprints that is. thanks again for the questions, Mike. —Stephen Shutt [[email protected]]

I think a chess teacher should know the rules and should have experienced a few tournaments from a director's point of view. However, requiring certification beyond Local TD just puts obstructions into the Coach Certification. The only thing a National TD has that a good Local TD does not is experience refereeing situations that arise. The greater experience of a Senior or National TD has little value to a chess coach. You must not make Coach Certification too cumbersome or too time demanding or no one will try to become qualified. —Jack C Mallory [[email protected]]

This proposal will definitely improve the current program. Over all, the requirements and the main concept are quite inclusive and accessible.

The main question at this point is the implementation of this proposal, especially in regard of the Chess in Education Seminars. Perhaps the USCF should certify the organizations that will providing this service.

In my opinion, before the approval of this proposal, we should elaborate further the implementation details of this program.

All the best,

Beatriz Marinello [[email protected]]

I understand that the chess coach certification program is going to be changed drastically. What will happen to those who already are certified coaches? —Richard Weinberg [[email protected]]

My understanding is that they are going to try to implement multi-levels of coaches much like TD certification. That there would be 4 criteria to go from one level to another, of which, only two are required.

While I am on the subject, I want to express great kudos to Ralph Bowman and Co., who put on a great tournament. Probably the best scholastic event so far. —Fred Roper [[email protected]]

The idea of multiple levels of certification is hardly new, Pete Nixon and I tried to implement this idea in the late 80's. At that time, the USCF had no interest in maintaining such a program and there were also some concerns expressed over implicit liability for actions of certified coaches. Have these obstacles now been resolved? —Mike Nolan [[email protected]]

The proposal is designed for TDs, teachers, and rated chessplayers to consider certification as chess coaches. There is no provision for checking how many hours per year were spent gaining experience.

Now, there are people who exceed the National level of chess coaching certification. But those people (for example Sunil Weeramantry or Bruce Pandolfini) are already known as super coaches. The credentialing system is to help others in search of guidelines for professional

development. The subcommittee felt that pursuing the steps at each level would improve a coach's practice. —Dr. Alexey Root [[email protected]]

Question: Would someone please try to explain just what needs fixing here? What should a "National Chess Coach" be able to do that a Senior or Local coach cannot? What problems exist because we lack such gradations? I'm unclear on why things are being done like this.

I have several suggestions for revising the qualifications for the various levels, but would prefer to hold off on describing them until it's clearer what the motivations are here.

As I see it, for a chess coach certification to mean anything, it would have to say something about the quality of one's teaching. Unfortunately, this is not an easy thing to measure.

Otherwise, if this system were implemented, and someone says, "Oh, I see you are a certified "National Coach," what does that mean?" If my reply is that it simply means I have been teaching for more than 5 years and my rating is over 1800, and I paid a fee to the USCF, then what is the certification telling that person that I couldn't have already told them?

Obviously rating alone isn't the key, since the hard part of teaching is putting what you know into a form that kids can understand and relate to and then getting them think about it. The number of years of teaching experience doesn't quite do it either. Someone else already mentioned the number of actual teaching hours is probably more significant. There are several instructors that I hire every January to teach a 6 week course to beginners. Some of these instructors never teach at any other time. If they have taught for me 5 times, then they have been teaching for 5 years (at the rate of 6 weeks a year). Somehow, I suspect this isn't what you had in mind for the experience requirement. A truly experienced teacher has learned to anticipate the way kids think, the kinds of mistakes they regularly make and also has the ability to design his own courses and present material in a way that engages the students. Unfortunately, as I said before, these things are not easy to measure. On the other hand, you can get a fair idea of someone's teaching ability by actually watching them teach.

Jerry has made a very good point that perhaps a certain number of teaching hours along with the number of years be part of the coach's certification. Also perhaps the a minimum number of students taught should be included. Having given lessons to one student for 5 years shouldn't qualify! At the top end perhaps the success of the teacher should come into play. Perhaps having produced at least one first place team or student in a championship section at a National Championship should be required. —Robert M. Snyder [[email protected]]

I think that actual experience coaching kids should be a non-substitutable requirement. Alan Losoff [[email protected]]

I agree with Al's comment. I also think that you need at least one more intermediate level. The definition of a National Chess Coach is too low. If I stop and think about the people that I would easily put in that category, I would end up lumping in people that I would not put in that category.

Consider, should the number of National major or National minor championship teams by a coach come into play in order to reach the highest level? Currently, there is no requirement for any...

What exactly are we trying to certify? The ability to organize a team? The ability to train a team? Both? —Kevin L. Bachler [[email protected]]

I agree with Alan that the requirement for experience as a chess coach always be required. Robert M. Snyder

Good point, Al. Our original proposal called for a specific number of years of chess coaching experience at all levels. Because it is more difficult to document the number of hours of chess coaching experience than it is to report a credential, our subcommittee opted to modify the proposal to make it easier for USCF to assess. I think if we add an introductory "club"

level, coaching experience would not have to be required. But for any advanced level, I feel Al is correct. As I see it, the major problem is how to document the years of service. We will probably need to request an employer or volunteer service to “certify” experience on letterhead. —Bob Ferguson [[email protected]]

The proposed chess coach certification plan is VOLUNTARY. In other children's sports (soccer, baseball, football, etc.), only about 20 percent of coaches chose to pursue voluntary certification. I don't expect that more than 20 percent of scholastic chess coaches will pursue this proposed USCF certification.

One rationale for offering the certification plan is to encourage people or institutions to offer training that might be helpful to scholastic coaches. Again by analogy to other sports, about 85% of coaches have a child playing the sport. Many of these coaches don't have training in child development or in the technical aspects of their sport. But they want to do a good job. Certification plans can provide guidance to parent/volunteer coaches about what training might improve their coaching skills.

Hope this helps clarify the intent of the proposal. —Dr. Alexey Root [[email protected]]

I have said numerous times that the USCF should ask the coaches what they want and what would be helpful to them…

While we don't have a certification program at Chess'n Math, all our teachers are required to follow a 1-day training session. They must also provide us with a paper from the RCMP saying that they have no criminal record (must be renewed every 3 years). Our pay scale is based on the number of hours taught with increases in pay at 100 hours, 300 hours, 500 hours and 1,000 hours. In our case, I think a certification at 500 hours and 1,000 hours would make sense and I believe we will do that in the fall. Also a special certification of "honoured chess coach" requiring a minimum of 1,000 hours would go to those who have coached the same student up through the ranks from under 1400 to master level.

…does the proposal as stated even meet the needs of/have any attraction to the people it's trying to target?

I've floated the proposed plan, with request for feedback, to the three dominant scholastic chess leagues in our state (most but not all of the teams in which are coached by teachers rather than independent coaches --I'm past director of one of them), and also posted it to the state on-line chess forum, where a certain number of teacher-coaches hang out. The silence has been deafening. The only person to express *any* opinion in response has been the director of one of the leagues, a non-teacher; and his opinion is basically "who cares? certainly not my coaches" -- an opinion supported by the coaches' seemingly complete disinterest. Not one evinced either the slightest interest in the program or any ideas for making it more interesting.

I don't know how significant this apathetic reaction is, because I have no way of determining how many of these coaches simply trashed the message unread or never even received it, rather than reading and concluding it wasn't interesting enough to respond to. Still, the people who were sent the message were sent it precisely because they *are* interested enough in chess to have assembled teams. If *they* aren't interested in the proposed program, how is USCF ever going to "sell" it to the vast bulk of teachers with a nodding acquaintance with chess but not enough interest heretofore even to put teams together at a purely local level?

Sad to say, the conclusion appears to be that the certification program is a tempest in a teapot. I'd be delighted if someone would present evidence that this conclusion is wrong. —Bill Johnson [[email protected]]

Based upon communications from this group, the Scholastic Council has made several modifications to the Coach Certification proposal. One decision is that we must have a series of coaches' tests, which will include questions on chess rules, coaching, teaching, tournament rules, etc.

If you have topics or questions you would like to suggest be incorporated in these proposed tests for coach certification, please email them to me at [email protected].

Hi Bob and Tom,

      I just reviewed the proposed Coach's Certification program and I am at first glance opposed to it. I have been a coach for 16 years, starting my 17th. I have coached 12 students/teams across the finish line in first place at National Championship events over that time. There are few who can match my credentials.

      Frankly, I would be insulted (please, I am not pointing a finger at anyone when I use that word, those are my internal feelings) to have to start at the local level and work "my way up." Are you going to ask Bruce Pandolfini, Richard Peterson, Pete Nixon, the Minnesota folks to do this? I think that is a real bad idea.

      Secondly, $5? You gotta be kidding me. Either make it $0, or $40, the price of a USCF Adult Membership. That would help pay for the program.   $5? You can't order a #2 at Wendy's for that little. As a matter of fact, I have this same problem with the Connecticut State Chess Association whose annual dues are that amount. On October 6th, I will be arguing for an increase to $10. Tom, you may want to attend that meeting as it is at the Greenwich Hyatt, and they are doing a tour of the facility: site of the US Game 10?!

      Third, testing? I am a Senior TD, three time NM, finished sixth in the world on board two at the Manila Olympiads, 12 national championship individual/teams, and I am going to have to pass three tests? You're joking, right?

      Feel free to pass on my thoughts to Alexey (hi! I don't think I have seen you since the Novi Sad Olympiad) and Sunil.

      While the idea has merit, for me to go through all of those steps, it would personally be demeaning. I believe my reputation speaks for itself.   Yes, I have detractors, Bob and I can both think of one in Terre Haute, but I am an asset over all when all is said and done for chess in this country.

      My above mentioned thoughts are not intended in anyway as an insult to either one of you so please do not draw any such conclusion. It is just honest and open dissent.

      My Very Most Sincere Regards!
                  Rich Jackson

Thanks for your good comments. The goal of the program is more to help NEW folks learn how to coach and equip them with some skills. If veterans want to become certified, they could test at the highest level for which they are eligible. It's a volunteer program, but for 5 bucks I'd probably do it. The fee for certification has been $5 since the program started in the 1980s, but we are now going to require USCF membership...at least that's the proposal. It may not fly, but organized sports in most countries REQUIRE coach certification. In order to make chess a more recognized sport and to achieve full recognition in the Olympics, we may have to become a little more professional by setting higher standards. —Bob Ferguson [[email protected]]