The need to rethink coaching certification.

What can we do about the fact that the supply of trained coaches cannot meet the demand?

The idea of a certification process for interscholastic coaches, while generally considered praiseworthy, has met with little success nationwide.

Traditionally, most coaching positions have been filled by teachers certified in physical education. Time seems to be creating a strain on this process. Due to the growth of boys programs and the tremendous impact of Title IX on our girls programs, the demand for coaches has far exceeded our supply of professionally trained teachers and coaches.

In attempting to meet this demand, many states have changed their rules on coaching qualifications. Certified teachers in other disciplines have become a norm in the coaching profession, and an alarming trend has emerged: the practice of hiring non-teacher-certified full- or part-time school district employees on the strength of their playing experience or interest in the area.

In Texas, the current criterion for coaching is simply to be a full-time employee of the school district. Many Texas educators believe it is just a matter of time before even this criterion will be waived and anyone will be eligible to coach.

Data compiled by Sisley and Wiese in 1987 indicated that only six states required some form of coaching certification and that nine other states had voluntary certification programs.

Most coaches without a physical education background have little or no formal training in conditioning techniques, sport-specific coaching techniques, or the care of athletic injuries, nor any credentials in the psychology of coaching and the legal issues involved in coaching.

Coaching certification, in the context of this discussion, implies any process by which a state department of education will officially qualify a person for employment in a specific field. Such certification would signify the attainment of predetermined competencies or criteria.

Given the existing situation in coaching, our school systems are more or less obliged to consider several compelling reasons to develop some form of certification. Perhaps the most compelling reason is simply the litigious trend in society. Coaches have been held by the courts not only to what they are supposed to know but what they might have known had they exercised reasonable and prudent care.

States that permit the hiring of non-certified part-time coaches will have little or no chance of proving a standard of professional competence in cases where negligence is an issue.

A second argument for the certification of secondary school coaches is closely aligned with the legal argument. Many educators believe that coaching has become a specialized field, and that its practitioners, like all specialists, must be held accountable for specific performance levels.

A certification process would provide coaches with the background necessary to perform at a level commensurate with the expectations for professionals in the field. Certification would pay dividends in terms of the public, professional, and self-image of those who earn such certification.

Over the past three decades, the literature has become replete with proposed coaching certification curricula and programs. As early as 1950, the Education Policies Commission of the NEA stressed the need for the certification of secondary coaches. Conferences sponsored in 1962, 1967, and 1973 by AAHPER also directly addressed the issue. The 1967 conference evolved a set of minimum standards for coaches.

More current attempts at addressing this issue include the efforts of the 1987 Joint Committee on Coaching Certification. This combined effort by the NAGWS and the NASPE produced a position paper on coaching certification and suggested the preparation of potential coaches through professional programs designed to develop coaching competencies.

In March of 1994, the United States Sports Academy hosted a National Coaching Summit, the central focus of which was to discuss the work of a NASPE task force that had considered ways to improve the quality of coaching. A tentative document containing 37 standards, grouped in eight domains, was prepared:

1. Injuries: Prevention, Care and Management 2. Risk Management 3. Growth, Development, and Learning 4. Training, Conditioning, and Nutrition 5. Social/Psychological Aspects of Coaching 6. Skills, Tactics, and Strategies 7. Teaching and Administration 8. Professional Preparation and Development

The eight domains outlined in March, 1994 paralleled the content areas of previous studies or coaching competencies and criteria, The 1967 AAHPER recommendations called for the completion of 16 hours of college credit in courses covering:

1. Medical aspects of coaching [3 hours] 2. Principles and problems of coaching [3 hours] 3. Theory and techniques of coaching [6 hours] 4. Kinesiological foundations of coaching [2 hours] 5. Psychological foundations of coaching [2 hours]

A 1991 state-wide survey (by the author) of the perceptions of Texas high school coaches on coaching preparation, indicated similar required areas of competence. The 394 respondents indicated the need for competency in:

1. Athletic training, conditioning, first-aid 2. Principles and techniques of coaching 3. Anatomy, exercise physiology 4. Psychology of coaching 5. Sport law and program administration.

Despite the paucity of formal coaching certification programs, such programs have proven successful among specific sports governing agencies. Coaches in such sports as field hockey, soccer, and gymnastics receive certification through their national associations. Countries such as Germany, Belgium, France, Great Britain, and Canada have also sponsored coaching certification programs.

Of these, the Canadian program is the one most recognized. Canadian coaches receive certification at levels beginning with youth leagues up through national and international competition.

Successful certification of youth-sport coaches has also been accomplished through programs sponsored by the National Youth Sport Coaches Association. Many youth leagues have adopted the certification program process available through the American Coaching Effectiveness Program [ACEP].

The question of coaching certification does not appear to argue the matter of need as much as the form that the process should take. To suggest any form of national certification would be unrealistic. It probably could best be accomplished at the state level.

One possible solution would have our individual school districts assume the responsibility for insuring coaching competence. A set of criteria such as those suggested by NASPE or those formulated by either the state education agency or a state coaching association might serve as a foundation. In the absence of such criteria, school districts might develop a list of coaching competencies.

An example of such an undertaking can be seen in the Austin [Texas] Independent School District. This district is currently in the process of putting together a committee of school district personnel and local education resource personnel to study the question of coaching competencies and a possible certification process.

The actual certification process for those needing stated competencies could take several forms.

Traditional college course work taken during summer sessions as stand-alone courses or as part of an advanced degree plan would be one alternative.

Local colleges and universities might offer weekend and evening seminars utilizing their faculty with expertise in the competency areas.

Finally, school districts could offer such training opportunities in the form of seminars and workshops, possibly using existing programs such as ACEP.

One other question must be answered: Should currently employed coaches be grandfathered under such a certification process? Many surveys have indicated that coaches by and large favor a coaching certification, but always with the provision that such certification not be made retroactive.

In a Texas survey of high school coaches, 62% responded favorably to the idea of coaching certification, but 66% also indicated that such a process should include only new coaches.

Without question, the nature of the interscholastic coaching profession is changing. Due to issues of supply and demand, and legal liability, the doors have been opened to include many individuals with no preparation to coach.

Unfortunately, this is not a trend that seems destined to reverse itself in the near future. We in the profession must be proactive in addressing this issue. To meet the demand for coaches, to insure that our young athletes receive the best possible coaching, and to protect ourselves from potential lawsuits, coaching certification must be rethought.

In the opinion of many, this comes not a moment too soon.

Dr. John Knorr Director of Athletics Professor, Kinesiology St. Edward's University (TX)