FFI teaching outreach.

[Stoatstail50]

All I can see is that the CICP has been turned to face outwards. To be used as a volunteer resource for the wider US FFI community. I’m not sure who decided to do this but it wasn’t by any membership voting system that I recognise.

I don’t think it’s a betrayal Carol, it’s perhaps a reminder that the FFI is a very US centric organisation but, to be honest, for anyone who is an FFI member outside of the USA this won’t change a thing…yet.

That’s because my bet is that 100% of FFI members outside the USA, the I in the FFI, are CICP instructors. The communities they are already working in don’t care whether their instructor is from the FFI or NASA. (One of which they will have heard of and one of which they won’t ).

The new education program will focus on CICP I members voluntarily upskilling non-candidate US FFI chapter designated teachers, guides and industry professionals in the US angling community so that they can teach people to cast better.

This is a worthy mission I have no doubt. However, it makes certification pointless for them and does nothing to boost the number of people who would otherwise go to a certified instructor for lessons. In fact it probably makes it less likely that they will.

[Carol]

The purpose of the CICP was to set a qualification standard. This is true of Aapgai, Gaia, SGAIC, EFFA and a host of other certification bodies around the planet set up to regulate standards of instruction.

The implication from the above email comment is that the assessment standard is set too high for a large part of the active instructor community so a teaching resource of some description will be made available for those who “just want to teach” but don’t want to take an assessment because it would put their credibility as a guide or industry professional at risk if they failed it.

I’d love to see the FFI promote a resource about effective teaching because it is almost completely absent in the current curriculum. I wish them well with it but I would prefer to see it firmly attached to the CI program and properly assessed.

In re-reading this thread - since it’s not 30 pp long - I couldn’t agree more with the last paragraph in this quote.

It seems that we need to gain a better understanding of the intent of the changes to the program. The intent probably is good, but there may be issues that need to be hammered out. It’s hard to foresee all potential issues and concerns in advance. Being that 61 certified casters of all levels have voted to approve the change, the issues and frustrations that have been brought up in this thread likely have been considered. Perhaps it’s just a wait-and-see situation.

[Paul Arden]

Who runs the FFI CICP nowadays? Didn’t I hear somewhere that they had got rid of the CBOG, or did I dream that?

Cheers, Paul

[Carol]

Who runs the FFI CICP nowadays? Didn’t I hear somewhere that they had got rid of the CBOG, or did I dream that?

Cheers, Paul

It is my understanding that the current structure will be supplanted with a two-headed approach: casting skills development for non-certified members who simply want to improve their casting skills, and one for certification. The entire thing will be overseen by Jonathan Walter and Willy George, who have devoted a great deal of time, energy (and probably angst) developing the new structure.

The skills development does include assessment, but which is not as rigorous as certification. The certification program remains pretty much the same.

The hitch really is with teaching non-certified club instructors (and potentially guides?) to become better teachers. That seems to be what’s sticking in the throat.

[Lasse Karlsson]

Who runs the FFI CICP nowadays? Didn’t I hear somewhere that they had got rid of the CBOG, or did I dream that?

Cheers, Paul

Yeah, the CBOG is going, and being replaced by volunteers of all certification levels. It was dying with less and less members.

Cheers
Lasse

[Carol]

Isn’t/wasn’t CBOG all volunteers, overworked and frustrated ones?

As eluded to earlier, the paradigm of clubs doesn’t seem to appeal to today’s younger generations. TU faces the same decline in membership.

[Lasse Karlsson]

It seems that we need to gain a better understanding of the intent of the changes to the program. The intent probably is good, but there may be issues that need to be hammered out. It’s hard to foresee all potential issues and concerns in advance. Being that 61 certified casters of all levels have voted to approve the change, the issues and frustrations that have been brought up in this thread likely have been considered. Perhaps it’s just a wait-and-see situation.

Hi Carol

Did you participate in the Zoom meetings?

I don't remember being told that 61 certified instructors of all levels voted for this. But the BOD loved the idea, so did the various US counsils.

There should be a q and a meeting again on saturday, did you get the info?

Cheers
Lasse

[Stoatstail50]

The hitch really is with teaching non-certified club instructors (and potentially guides?) to become better teachers. That seems to be what’s sticking in the throat.

I think that if that's what the organisation sees as a route to greater relevance then it's fine, there's absolutely no reason why the FFI shouldn't do this. What is at issue is the argument that this will somehow increase business for certified instructors or increase the number of candidates that will step up for assessment. It might, but it's way more likely that it will do exactly the opposite.

The skills development does include assessment, but which is not as rigorous as certification.

I'm sure you can guess what I think Carol An instructor needs to be able to cast to the CI demo standard and an instructor needs to know how to apply the basic principles of motor skills learning to a lesson. IMO the last bit is still largely missing from the CI.

If a less rigorous assessment is sufficient to upgrade non-certified instructors, guides and industry professionals to enable them to teach better, then why not drop the CI assessment altogether and just use the skills development program to create instructors?. There would certainly be no need for MCI's either....which would probably save a lot of bother

[Carol]

Sorry. I assumed it was 61 certified instructors. Bad assumption.

[Carol]

What is at issue is the argument that this will somehow increase business for certified instructors or increase the number of candidates that will step up for assessment. It might, but it's way more likely that it will do exactly the opposite.
…
I'm sure you can guess what I think Carol An instructor needs to be able to cast to the CI demo standard and an instructor needs to know how to apply the basic principles of motor skills learning to a lesson. IMO the last bit is still largely missing from the CI.

I have no idea of what the outcome of the first issue will be, but I agree with you that the certified instructor needs to have a better understanding of motor skills and how to apply them. Some of the suggested reading could include Gray’s and Winkleman’s writings, and there could be questions about it in the teaching skills section. For instance, not just identifying faults but giving three possible ways to correct each, including drills. I learned some of that just from being a hard-to-fix caster, but candidates with fewer casting problems may not learn them.