FFI teaching outreach.

[Lasse Karlsson]

The feedback I have received over the last few years was that the test is now too hard to pass. One individual actually suggested that I passed my tests, admittedly many years ago, only because it was much easier back then. I suspect they did not realize how insulting that was, especially considering that I believe I could pass either test today without much effort. But, I have been involved long enough to remember that a lot of folks got certified by being grandfathered in when things first got off the ground.

So... FFF had a problem in the past when some certified instructors were not really very good, and so the FFF tightened up the requirements. Now after those changes, folks are complaining that it is too hard. Thats why I think the pendulum may be swinging somewhat back? But... won't there still be a distinction between instructors that are certified and those that are not?


All that being said, I think there are more benefits associated with the FFi than just the casting instructor stuff.

There's a task in the MCI I can't pass...

Yeah the grandfathered ones, met a few when I first got involved. Those where back from when the program started in the early 90's, not many still active. So don't think its the best argument, and agree with Mark on the difference.

I am sure there is more benefits if one lives in the US, its getting more and more difficult to spot them from somewhere else in the world. Maybe I'm just getting too old.

Cheers
Lasse

[Stoatstail50]

Those threads are just a Zzzzzzz in the background Walter. As indeed are threads like this if you’re not already a qualified instructor of some organisational hue or another.

The one true thing underpinning all of this is that you don’t need to be assessed in order to learn anything. If anyone wants to learn to teach it’s all out there if you look hard enough. After that, as Gary has pointed out, it’s just a matter of self proclamation, some good marketing and BOOM you’re an instructor.

If there is an issue with the FFI plan it is that there is no way to check that anyone has done the learning before they’ve done the proclaiming.

[VGB]

The one true thing underpinning all of this is that you don’t need to be assessed in order to learn anything. If anyone wants to learn to teach it’s all out there if you look hard enough. After that, as Gary has pointed out, it’s just a matter of self proclamation, some good marketing and BOOM you’re an instructor.

A 2 day course here and you are a nationally accredited coach with the Sports Council, which trumps the FFI in the eyes of the public.

[Stoatstail50]

I generally agree with Walter on motivation Vince and I think that the course you describe is the path of least resistance to a claim of instructional expertise which is one of the reasons why it’s quite popular. I have a L2 myself.

The thing is that many of these L2 coaches are pretty active and all the ones I’ve met are genuinely interested in helping others learn to cast. In the course world there’s not really anything else. It is a mechanism for upskilling people who want to promote enjoyment in the sport and who have regular contact with recreational anglers. No one wants to dent that enthusiasm and I’m assuming this is the kind of model the FFI are going to follow. I wish them well with it.

[VGB]

Hi Mark

I am not against the Angling Trust approach, arguably it takes the teaching element more seriously than previous casting instructor assessment.

The thing is that many of these L2 coaches are pretty active and all the ones I’ve met are genuinely interested in helping others learn to cast.

I don't think I have ever heard of a non-Instructor L2 coach passing on students for casting instruction, it appears that there isn't clear water between us in either their eyes, or the eyes of the public. IMO it has weakened the case for certification.

Regards

Vince

[Stoatstail50]

I don't think I have ever heard of a non-Instructor L2 coach passing on students for casting instruction, it appears that there isn't clear water between us in either their eyes, or the eyes of the public. IMO it has weakened the case for certification.

Yep...It'll do the same in the USA too.

[Carol]

The one true thing underpinning all of this is that you don’t need to be assessed in order to learn anything. If anyone wants to learn to teach it’s all out there if you look hard enough. After that, as Gary has pointed out, it’s just a matter of self proclamation, some good marketing and BOOM you’re an instructor.

If there is an issue with the FFI plan it is that there is no way to check that anyone has done the learning before they’ve done the proclaiming.

It seems to me that the point is to teach a chapter’s designated instructor to be a better instructor when there isn’t a certified instructor in the chapter. We have that problem here. The designated instructor is a former guide who got some sort of certification after a one-day class at a Fenwick School class in the mid-70’s. He still teaches 10 and 2. So the idea is to help him help all members of the chapter. Since I am new to the chapter, I don’t want to force my CI-ness on them, as some sort of superior caster, but will work with the DI and hopefully he’ll learn from me casually as we do classes together. I DID learn a lot from him last week about graylings while we fished together.

[Stoatstail50]

Hi Carol

The old mission of the CICP was to set standards, manage a curriculum and administer assessments. As I understand it, the new mission is still to do all that and also provide volunteers to teach those teachers embedded in the FFI chapters, pro-guides and industry professionals to teach better but who don’t want to be assessed. In this way a certified instructor will get more business and the CICP will generate more CI candidates. Is that right?

Amongst the many things discussed on these threads is peoples emotional engagement with their sport and how significant it can be to an individuals self esteem. Candidates approaching an assessment put that on the line, what they believe about themselves will be tested. For many it is simply too great a risk and they don’t do it. If you’re an experienced guide or industry professional you’d look a proper mug if you failed. Nothing will change that.

Others, like your wise old guide, have been teaching 10-2, bend it to send it, to local folks for decades. Its been working fine for them, it’s simple, gets people started and they work it out for themselves on the water which is part of the fun of it. So they’ll give you a bit of time so as not to cause offence and carry on doing what they’ve done for the last 50 years when someone asks for a bit of help. Why would they change ? This is the case whether the individual is certified or not…a nod in acknowledgement and then carry on doing it just like always. In this case they have all the status and self esteem they need and there’s no point in learning anything new or taking an assessment because everything is already ticketyboo.

This, at least, is my personal experience, I accept that other instructors may have had more success than I have in that department

Vince has argued that, as a consequence of adding the mission to educate these two groups in teaching skills that the value of having a certificate will be diminished. This may or may not prove to be true. What we do know to be true , from direct experience over here in the UK, is that this kind of program does not significantly increase opportunities for certified instructors or increase instructor candidates. In fact it actively supports alternative sources of unqualified instruction and thus reduces the incentive to certify.

This is the opposite effect to the suggested outcome for the CICP in the presentation. Good for the clubs and non certified instructors not so good for the CICP. Form follows function right ?

[Walter]

I'll present an example from my experience of going through the certification process. Maybe it's relevant to the current discussion. Maybe it isn't but here goes.

During one of the times I was doing my CI test there was a couple who were also doing their CI test. They had the intention of starting up an outdoor group camp for young people and wanted to include fly fishing as one of the activities available to the young people attending the camp. Unfortunately, neither of them did very well at the test. They weren't happy because they felt this impacted their ability to offer this activity. In fact, they seemed to have the attitude that they should have been passed because they were doing something to help young people. Obviously, something was flawed in that view. But the reality is that there was no need for either of them to be certified just to offer that activity at their camps. I have no idea what happened with that couple and their camps. Did they drop fly fishing as an activity? Did they later get certified? Don't know. Would the new structure have served them better? Also don't know.

[Carol]

Hi Carol

The old mission of the CICP was to set standards, manage a curriculum and administer assessments. As I understand it, the new mission is still to do all that and also provide volunteers to teach those teachers embedded in the FFI chapters, pro-guides and industry professionals to teach better but who don’t want to be assessed. In this way a certified instructor will get more business and the CICP will generate more CI candidates. Is that right?

Amongst the many things discussed on these threads is peoples emotional engagement with their sport and how significant it can be to an individuals self esteem. Candidates approaching an assessment put that on the line, what they believe about themselves will be tested. For many it is simply too great a risk and they don’t do it. If you’re an experienced guide or industry professional you’d look a proper mug if you failed. Nothing will change that.

Others, like your wise old guide, have been teaching 10-2, bend it to send it, to local folks for decades. Its been working fine for them, it’s simple, gets people started and they work it out for themselves on the water which is part of the fun of it. So they’ll give you a bit of time so as not to cause offence and carry on doing what they’ve done for the last 50 years when someone asks for a bit of help. Why would they change ? This is the case whether the individual is certified or not…a nod in acknowledgement and then carry on doing it just like always. In this case they have all the status and self esteem they need and there’s no point in learning anything new or taking an assessment because everything is already ticketyboo.

This, at least, is my personal experience, I accept that other instructors may have had more success than I have in that department

Vince has argued that, as a consequence of adding the mission to educate these two groups in teaching skills that the value of having a certificate will be diminished. This may or may not prove to be true. What we do know to be true , from direct experience over here in the UK, is that this kind of program does not significantly increase opportunities for certified instructors or increase instructor candidates. In fact it actively supports alternative sources of unqualified instruction and thus reduces the incentive to certify.

This is the opposite effect to the suggested outcome for the CICP in the presentation. Good for the clubs and non certified instructors not so good for the CICP. Form follows function right ?

In the face of the change, it’s impossible for those of us who achieved certification not to feel betrayed at some level.It also feels as though the original purpose for the inception of the CICP is being eviscerated.

And, as was mentioned earlier in the thread, it’s unlikely to bring new casters into FFI. Younger anglers may not want to join FFI, thinking it’s all a bunch of old farts sitting around having meetings. It had little or nothing to do with the CICP. They’d rather spend time hanging out with their friends drinking beer and talking about fishing than practice. Maybe that’s too generalized. I don’t know.

All that said, just because a designated casting instructor learns how to teach doesn’t mean they are good casters. They will not be demonstrating good casting technique and students will be learning bad technique. This is where the current CICP model is so valuable and the new model may fail.

The idea of casting skills improvement program for everyone other than would-be certified instructors is good. Keep that, but don’t dilute the value of certification program.

As for the intent of driving business for certified instructors, I can’t speak to that, although the casting skills improvement program might do that.