FFI teaching outreach.

[Stoatstail50]

We want to target not just existing certified casting instructors, but candidates for certification, and individuals who just want to teach casting (like club members or industry professionals such as guides) but who do not presently wish to pursue CICP certification

I’m good with trying to improve the quality of teaching all round but I have to admit to being slightly baffled by the last bit there. This is for people, industry professionals and guides, who want to teach casting but just don’t want to be assessed ?

[VGB]

Does that mean it’s okay for me to stop paying the FFI but carry on teaching regardless? Sounds like a bargain.

[Stoatstail50]

That’s what it sounds like to me too but, apparently, not so. Just spoken on this and that is seemingly not what is intended. Very interested to see how it works out though.

[Mangrove Cuckoo]

Does that mean it’s okay for me to stop paying the FFI but carry on teaching regardless? Sounds like a bargain.

Vince,

I can't tell if you are being facetious, or do you have to be certified to teach flycasting where you are?

I can tell you that here in Florida, the vast majority of flycasting instructors are self proclaimed. And I doubt a great percentage of them even know of the FFi. On the flip side, most of the CIs don't teach... they just wanted to prove they could get the cert.

I sat through the recent online meeting. And I think I get where they are going with this? We'll see if best intentions hold out... and I do think best intentions are in play.

But there are always egos to deal with... and the sniping of the ever present critics.

[VGB]

Gary

It looks like a problem in the US that has been solved for the US, it has all come as a complete surprise and a fait accompli. You are always on the sidelines.

Over here, we have qualified fishing coaches that have never certified that teach casting. Tell me, why anyone should go for assessment and pay dues afterwards?

I watched the presentation and have seen it has been endorsed by all 61 directors of the FFI councils. I also noticed there were about 60 attendees from 1100 invites. Tell me why I should buy into it?

Vince

[Walter]

From what I can see the only significant change is the addition of the “hold your hand up” app. In the past almost all of the cIs and most of the MCIs felt left out of cbog committee work and disconnected from the mothership. The app will give them a chance to express interest without having to know someone who knows someone to get invited. The only problem I see with that is that the majority of positions identified are already filled by the people who were already doing the committee work. There was also mention of doing regional events to drum up interest in the CICP program so that those uncertified instructors will see the advantage of getting themselves certified. Sounds to me like the previously under utilized CI pool will be expected to do those but there wasn’t any talk of support from the mothership for the those organizers beyond some more training materials. Maybe they’ll add some new dues paying categories for instructors in training, instructors who aren’t certified and people who have never been interested in getting certified. There was also talk about streamlining the examiner certification process. Personally, I think the organization would be better served by looking at the root causes of why instructors and examiners are dropping out of the program for retention purposes rather than trying to expand the pool of potential candidates. But that’s just me. I would suggest it but I didn’t see any committees for that purpose.

[Stoatstail50]

.. and the sniping of the ever present critics.

We’ve been wifiless whilst fishing and so I have only seen the emails. The impression I got was that the FFI was going to offer teaching advice to anyone who “just wants to teach” but didn’t want to sit an assessment.

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.

[VGB]

I can't tell if you are being facetious, or do you have to be certified to teach flycasting where you are?

This is a nationally accredited coaching scheme here with 2 levels requiring a total of 5 days training, no mention of casting in the syllabus

https://anglingtrust.net/get-involved/coaching/

One of the U.K.Fly casting organisations were forming a partnership with the Angling Trust. I don’t know what that means in practical terms but I think we have more instructors than anglers.

The only problem I see with that is that the majority of positions identified are already filled by the people who were already doing the committee work.

That caught my eye as well, it didn’t look very international either.

Maybe they’ll add some new dues paying categories for instructors in training, instructors who aren’t certified and people who have never been interested in getting certified.

This also exists in the UK where you can have a social or associate membership.

https://gameanglinginstructors.co.uk/in ... rship.html

[Lasse Karlsson]

Sounds very much like trying to get more people involved by giving good free content, and then that should create more work for the professionals..
Hope it works. Only fans seems to work...

I must say, that the arguement that testings and candidates are dwindling compared to historical highs, right after having three years of only very few tests, and only in very private seem like a bit of a data hiccup. And that said dwindling makes cause for trying a new approach of getting more candidates over time. It is the only organisation I know of, where one has to pay more, after paying to become more than a normal member. And if the good content is free, why then become a member, why become a member who pays more? Looking into keeping CI's and MCI's in the program might have a better impact.

I can see that the examiner pathway is being streamlined, cool, the current problem as I see it though, is it's not assessed good enough right now..

Cheers
Lasse

[Walter]

We used to have a rule of thumb in marketing that it took 6 times more effort to get a client back after you’ve lost them or to get a new client to replace the one you’ve lost compared to keeping a client you already have. I don’t know if that same rule applies to instructors but I’m sure it’s similar. It seems to me that it would make sense to find out why you are losing the instructors you have before beginning a major push to attract new instructors.

Another thing I would like to see is some sort of continuing education beyond the master level. Maybe the new stuff they are talking about will help fill that.