English Chess Forum

Alex Holowczak wrote:
Was this a legal necessity back in 2002?

Is it not legal necessity in 2011 but it is best practice.

John Upham wrote:

Alex Holowczak wrote:
Was this a legal necessity back in 2002?

Is it not legal necessity in 2011 but it is best practice.

Fair enough. Was it considered best practice back in 2002? There must have been a point where suddenly CRB checks became de rigeur for this sort of thing?

jhouska wrote: if Sabrina says she is accredited and has the necessary documentation to prove it. Lets trust her'................

Jovanka
Security risk mitigation doesnt work that way !

Crediting people with the resourcefulness and intelligence they clearly have still leaves Sabrina’s misunderstanding the regulations as a possibility. Speculation again I know but Sabrina may believe that holding an additional recent CRB clearance outside of the ECF would prolong her accreditation.

I took it, perhaps wrongly, that the main value of the ECF accreditation list, lies in the ECF being able to advertise a list of coaches on the Website who can be approached by even a complete newcomer to organised chess and select a coach who has undergone basic security checks. Such a person may not have heard of Jovanka Houska, Nigel Short or other high spec coaches and would not be able to perform their own security checks.

Your points about other criteria are clearly valid additionally but not in place of accreditation, so the ECF could look at copying the COM or other ways to address a start level of coach technical competence. In addition a road test of the coach at work would also be useful.

John Upham wrote:You are correct.

Tony Robson is listed .....

Are there any others ?

This continues to be one of the most morale-sapping threads I've read on this forum.

Some people seem confused about what accreditation means. The ECF does not claim that its accredited coaches are better than any others. Accreditation exists as a service to parents and others who are trying to meet their responsibility to ensure that any coach under consideration is suitable.

The only thing that ECF accreditation demonstrates is that the coach has met the published criteria, which I'll repeat:

b) No Coach shall be appointed to his or her post unless the Board is satisfied that he or she has previously conducted himself or herself in a
manner befitting such appointment and also he or she satisfies all of the following pre-conditions:
(i) Membership of ECF; and
(ii) Possession of Enhanced CRB Disclosure at the time of appointment; and
(iii) The provision of the name of two referees and the receipt of satisfactory references from those referees; and
(iv) Fulfilment of the qualifications to become a Coach current at the time of appointment.

"c) All such appointments of the Coaches shall be for a period of three years and may be renewed for successive periods of three years provided that
the pre-conditions set out in 2(b) above are satisfied at the time of each such re-appointment.

This doesn't make any statement about the relative qualities of accredited and non-accredited coaches. It tells you something about accredited coaches but nothing - positive or negative - about non-accredited ones. Someone could meet or exceed all of the accreditation criteria but not be accredited. It is perfectly possible to be an excellent coach and NOT meet the accreditation criteria.

Accreditation is just a means of providing useful information to parents who are looking to choose a coach, but it's not the only one, and parents are free to reach an informed conclusion in other ways.

jhouska wrote: Secondly telling juniors and other improving players that a trainer is not needed is very dangerous advice. Anyone who is anyone in the chess world have all had training.
I am sure if one offered this negative kind of advice in countries like China and Russia, you would just be laughed at. In order to be good at chess, just like in any sport you would need to apply yourself with strict discipline. This is much much easier with a trainer to guide your way.

Jovanka

Please note that my comment about "just reading books, it would cause fewer arguments" was intended as a joke. The relevant part being the latter part of the comment. Good coaching obviously has a part to play in any player's development.

This thread after some valid initial discussion and genuine offering of advice and clarification, has as is sadly usual with threads surrounding Sabrina's initiatives descended quite unnecessarily.

Obviously it may be a bit late now in this specific case, but i would strongly urge Sabrina in future not to do things to satisfy some supposed "forum opinion". Take advice from individual posts on the forum if you think it is useful, even better take advice from relevant people in the ECF, but don't forget that the people posting here are a tiny subset of the chess population. And many will never be affected by what you are doing.

And one final thing - whilst you are clearly motivated by providing better opportunities for juniors and women, please try to avoid plunging too much of your own money into doing so, unless perhaps you see it as an investment that will pay off eventually. In the long run it doesn't benefit many people if those who are participating in chess professionally cannot sustain themselves within it. It is obviously different for those of us who are amateurs.

If your coaching is valuable and appreciated then I believe that parents will pay for it. That is not to say that there isn't a role for providing for those who are less able to afford it.

Andrew Farthing wrote:This continues to be one of the most morale-sapping threads I've read on this forum.

Some people seem confused about what accreditation means. The ECF does not claim that its accredited coaches are better than any others. Accreditation exists as a service to parents and others who are trying to meet their responsibility to ensure that any coach under consideration is suitable.

This doesn't make any statement about the relative qualities of accredited and non-accredited coaches. It tells you something about accredited coaches but nothing - positive or negative - about non-accredited ones. Someone could meet or exceed all of the accreditation criteria but not be accredited. It is perfectly possible to be an excellent coach and NOT meet the accreditation criteria.

Accreditation is just a means of providing useful information to parents who are looking to choose a coach, but it's not the only one, and parents are free to reach an informed conclusion in other ways.

If this is the case, then why is it being used to stop Sabrina, Jovanka and Keith? Why are they not having more support from the ECF about this? Why are they having to spend £600 organising a venue?

It would have been simple enough for the ECF to have said

" Sabrina Chevannes (WFM) Women's ECF Director, Jovanka Houska (IM) Women's ECF Director and Keith Arkell (GM) (none of these coaches are currently ECF accredited and therefore full responsibility for ensuring the appropriate CRB checks etc rests firmly with the parents concerned) are currently offering private coaching alongside the free coaching offered by Nick Nixon - who is ECF accredited - and kindly provided by the ECF.

...Whilst Nick has the full support of the ECF, coaching carried out by Sabrina, Jovanka and Keith is most welcome in order to promote junior chess....

....as one would expect from any private coaching taking place at The British Championships, the responsibilty for ensuring that all is proper and above board rests firmly with the parents concerned...."

Or some such

(Forgive my attempts at wording - I am not a legal eagle, I am sure people can come up with better, it is just a suggestion.)

Then for next year, set up proper guidelines.

Why all the houha?

PS Also, having Keith (GM), Jovanka(IM) and Sabrina (WFM) offering structured, regular, private coaching has to be a selling point for the British itself.

I do not believe that anything like this has been done before.

Krishna Shiatis wrote:

Andrew Farthing wrote:Accreditation is just a means of providing useful information to parents who are looking to choose a coach, but it's not the only one, and parents are free to reach an informed conclusion in other ways.

If this is the case, then why is it being used to stop Sabrina, Jovanka and Keith? Why are they not having more support from the ECF about this?

Krishna asks a reasonable question. In my opinion, if the ECF has a rule on accreditation it should apply it to everyone and it should be a precondition for ECF support. As a member of the ECF I strongly support it insisting on CRB checks. It might not be everything, but it is something. I think it is right the ECF follows the best practice it can in this area.

It seems those who know the CCA think it vastly exceeds the ECFs minimum standards. Great. But I would still like them to follow the rules, so the minimum standard can still be applied fairly to everyone else.

I cannot understand why the CCA is not on the accredited list, and seems to feel that even incurring a substantial expense is better than engaging with this process.

No-one at the CCA feels they are above the rules. It is others who have been using this argument of accreditation in order to discredit us in some way. It is also grossly unfair that suddenly we are subjected to this all this scrutiny when it seems that the people in power can pick and choose who accreditation should be applicable to. Myself and Sabrina are CRB checked and will be taking this document with us to Sheffield should the parents of our students wish to see it.
Furthermore, Sabrina has stated time and time again that she has been accredited and that for whatever strange reason her name has not been put on the list on the webpage. I should hope that someone can Sabrina a good reason as to why not. I am not accredited as of yet but I have been in the past. I am however reluctant to send my CRB to the ECF office so close in timing to the British - just think it would probably give even more ammunition to the critics if I didn't have my CRB with me! I however will get accreditation as I do think if properly implemented the accreditation process could be a very valuable tool.
The fact that we are not allowed to teach at the venue is something entirely independent to the accreditation process. No-one has ever said to us - get accreditted and you can teach at the venue.
Jovanka

jhouska wrote:Furthermore, Sabrina has stated time and time again that she has been accredited and that for whatever strange reason her name has not been put on the list on the webpage. I should hope that someone can give Sabrina a good reason as to why not.

This does appear to be the key question

Carl Hibbard wrote:I should hope that someone can give Sabrina a good reason as to why not.

This does appear to be the key question

I can't even understand the question, never mind try and answer it

LozCooper wrote:I can't even understand the question, never mind try and answer it

Perhaps a closer read would help

LozCooper wrote:I can't even understand the question, never mind try and answer it

I thought Jovanka summarised her concerns clearly.

I think someone needs to mediate on CCAs actions and the fairness of their treatment by the ECF. In the absence of a Junior Director, I think it warrants Andrew Farthing's personal intervention.

A less key question is whether it should be done on this forum or behind closed doors, probably in Sheffield. Let's consult David Sedgwick

Paul Cooksey wrote:A less key question is whether it should be done on this forum or behind closed doors, probably in Sheffield. Let's consult David Sedgwick

It's probably best if I don't rise to the bait.

Carl Hibbard wrote:

LozCooper wrote:I can't even understand the question, never mind try and answer it

Perhaps a closer read would help

Better still, maybe a complete break from the thread will improve my sanity