# Making archery instructor certificaiton free (or at least, more affordable...)



## target1 (Jan 16, 2007)

I got a NFAA imtermediate cert, many years back. I think it is the equivl. to Level 2-3, not sure. Anyway when the NFAA passed the torch to USAA, when I expired I let it go. I have no intentions of renewing or re-certifying. I still teach from time to time and don't worry at all if my certs are up to date.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Well, I was declared a "regional high performance coach" by coach Lee in 2007, and have international experience shooting and coaching, so I have no clue what my current cert. level is, but it would be in the best interest of USArchery to have me out there teaching level 1 and level 2 classes. I just don't understand why I need to fork over so much cash to do so, when I basically have all the knowlege I feel I need to teach. 

This is the only organization I'm a member of where I have to PAY to help people.

It's not a sucessful formula, I can assure you.

I suspect your reasons are much the same as mine, but just out of curiosity, why haven't you re-upped your certifications with USArchery?

If I were running an organization like USArchery and many of my most experienced instructiors nationwide were not renewing their certifications and actively teaching new instructors, I think I'd be a bit concerned about that.

John


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> Well, I was declared a "regional high performance coach" by coach Lee in 2007, and have international experience shooting and coaching, so I have no clue what my current cert. level is, but it would be in the best interest of USArchery to have me out there teaching level 1 and level 2 classes. I just don't understand why I need to fork over so much cash to do so, when I basically have all the knowlege I feel I need to teach.
> 
> This is the only organization I'm a member of where I have to PAY to help people.
> 
> ...


This has been a mess in the past, but it looks like USA archery is working to make this more straight forward. And they've gone back to using easy categorize numbers rather than vague names for the coaching levels. For a while there seemed to be a big disadvantage to getting a community coaching (now re-branded as level 3, though less involved than the old level 3 cert) in that it had a shorter renewal period than the level 2. Now all coaching levels have the same renewal period.

http://www.teamusa.org/USA-Archery/Certification/Certification-Renewal.aspx


> _*LEVEL 1 (formerly BASIC) INSTRUCTOR *_
> 
> 
> Renewal period: Three years
> ...


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Warbow, I just looked that up, and yes, it has been simplified. The $30 recert. fee is reasonable IMO.

However, most level 2 courses I've found are $150 plus travel/lodging, and most level 3 are $250 plus travel/lodging.

What I want to know is if an instructor has 10 level 3 students in their class, where the he** is that $2500 going?

These courses should only cost whatever the actual expenses are to conduct. 

I saw a coaching course offered at the OTC that was something like $600-700 per person. Seriously? All that should be required is that a person qualifies to receive that level of certification, and covers the cost of materials. If you're going to ask a group of people to donate their time coaching archery to kids, then IMO you should be donating your time to teach them.

Any attempt by USArchery to use coaching certifications as a fund raiser, or by a coach to profit from hosting instructor courses, is IMO counter to the whole spirit of growing the sport.

John


----------



## m013690 (Sep 3, 2011)

I don't really mean to float my own boat here, but perhaps just to demonstrate that there are those of us out here who agree. Last weekend I gave a certification class for three guys wanting to start a program at their local gun club. It was a 3-hour drive, each way. All I asked them to pay was the cost of the materials ($20 per packet) from USAA. Nothing for my time, gas, lunch or anything like that. I didn't realize it until after the fact, but I ate the cost of the shipping for the books as well ($11). I just did it to help spread the knowledge and grow the sport, especially since it's apparently so difficult to do. And if those guys really DO get a youth program up and running, it'll have been well worth it. I hope it works out.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> Warbow, I just looked that up, and yes, it has been simplified. The $30 recert. fee is reasonable IMO.
> 
> However, most level 2 courses I've found are $150 plus travel/lodging, and most level 3 are $250 plus travel/lodging.
> 
> ...


I'm not sure what to think. I think we'd all like archery to be as affordable as possible, and for there to me plenty of qualified coaches. Should it be an all volunteer organization at all levels, or should coach trainers be allowed to make some money using the skills they, themselves, invested time and money to earn? I like both ideas, but they contradictory positions and I'm not sure the best way to sort out the contradiction. I like the idea of volunteering, it is what I do in archery and what you do at a much higher level than I can, but I also appreciate the idea of compensating people for their work.

One thing I think we should be able to agree on is that all USAA instructional materials should be on-line, for free. I've heard that USAA is working on doing some of the book-based tests on line as an adjunct to the in person training. Hopefully that will be the case and hopefully making the training materials free, online will be part of that. We should all be able to read ahead and get the book based learning out of the way *before* going to the training session. Studies have shown that to be more effective for learning.

Also, USAA needs its own high-level training material, not just that privately published for profit by its coach and an RA. If USAA can't make NTS stand still long enough to write it down, or if it is too complex to write down, then it can't be called a national standard.


----------



## target1 (Jan 16, 2007)

limbwalker said:


> It's not a sucessful formula, I can assure you.
> 
> I suspect your reasons are much the same as mine, but just out of curiosity, why haven't you re-upped your certifications with USArchery?
> 
> John


I had been a long time NFAA member, my wife worked at the NFAA hq, when they moved to Yank Town, she lost her job. At the time Lloyd was sent packing, BEST was being shoved down everyones throat. The USAA CFO was being sent down the river to the big house and the management was in disarray. USAA didn't seem like the place to be. Since I was a known commodity here locally, I didn't see the value of aligning myself with USAA. I know it's changed, but I've managed just fine without the active certs. I don't really see the value in it, for me.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

target1 said:


> I had been a long time NFAA member, my wife worked at the NFAA hq, when they moved to Yank Town, she lost her job. At the time Lloyd was sent packing, BEST was being shoved down everyones throat. The USAA CFO was being sent down the river to the big house and the management was in disarray. USAA didn't seem like the place to be. Since I was a known commodity here locally, I didn't see the value of aligning myself with USAA. I know it's changed, but I've managed just fine without the active certs. I don't really see the value in it, for me.


Yeah, if you are already a good and experienced coach, the certs can be somewhat superfluous. I know of at least one collegiate coach who stuck with just having the minimum certs because they didn't matter to his coaching. 

Much is made about the insurance through USAA, but how difficult is it to get insured via other means? The only reason USAA can offer the insurance as a no-cost side benefit is because archery is insured for the same rate as other low claim activities such as bowling.


----------



## spangler (Feb 2, 2007)

limbwalker said:


> While I completely agree that more qualified and experienced archery instructors is always a good thing - and especially in need at a time like this, when we're seeing a real surge in the sport - I always cringe at the expense involved in earning and maintaining "Level x" instructor certifications...
> 
> Admittedly, I've largely ignored the certifications since they went away, and then came back again, but every time I see a class being held for archery instructors, it seems the fees are ridiculously high. Not to mention the fact that certifications can expire and instructors have to re-up (and pay the associated fees).
> 
> ...


http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=893109

I guess that is how I feel about my level 3 class I attended back in '09. I estimate that between gas/lodging/expenses/class fees I paid around $500.

I found it very helpful and enjoyed having a standard curriculum and an experienced coach teach the class. I feel it was a worthwhile class and as indicated worth the money. I feel it enhanced my ability to coach archery students.

When I'm teaching level 1 classes, these are normally done for summer camps in the area. I charge a sum that after gas/lodging/materials earns me about $10/hr.


----------



## >--gt--> (Jul 1, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> What I want to know is if an instructor has 10 level 3 students in their class, where the he** is that $2500 going?
> 
> These courses should only cost whatever the actual expenses are to conduct.
> 
> ...


Perhaps so. I have spent plenty of my own money teaching others and doing other volunteer things for this sport. On the other hand, it sure is high handed to tell someone else how they can or can't make a living.


----------



## Serious Fun (May 12, 2003)

This is what AZ Clubs have been doing:
Clubs make money teaching archers thru beginner and intermediate class for the range and parks and rec, etc. With the money they purchased more target, more equipment and grew. To help grow the clubs, the clubs give grants to their members who are willing to help teach, by becoming level 2. A few years later, we brought in a Level 3 (formerly community coach) instructor and ended up with a lot more higher level coaching but also a pool of folks that can teach level 2 often and locally. We kept the course cost the same but no expensive out of town travel is needed. Some of the level 3 moved up to regional and higher which brought even higher level coaching to AZ. Most importantly a local regional coach became a level 3 Instructor so now we have local affordable level 3 courses for the level 2 that were ready to move up. The result is even more level 3s that can teach more level 2s.

This didn’t happen overnight. We began in the early 2000s. A decade later, we have a solid base of quality local instruction and coaching. We need the numbers because many instructor and coaches fade away. We had no idea a decade ago that there would be the Hunger games, Brave, Arrow, NTS, USAA Paralympic/Olympic USAA medals or World Archery World Cups. Who knew archery would be so popular and achievement so high? All we knew is that youth love archer and so do their parents and the only thing that limited us were certified instruction and coaching teaching more and more target archery. 

Despite a decade of really hard work, we cannot keep up with demand. We have more customers than class space. Youth and adults. Supply and demand has allowed us to raise the class fees, which allows us to grant more money for more instructor training, purchase more equipment and grow the clubs. The bottle neck continues to be instructors. It turns out that people are more valuable than money and time is the most value.

It’s not too late. Probably the most important thing we did as a state was to focus on growth by offering quality programs, with quality equipment led by quality leaders with participation in quality events. USAA was key to each of these goals by providing the pieces such as JOAD star pins, Senior/Junior/Cadet USAT, World Ranking/World Cup, Electronic scoring, Social media, Outreach, NTS, and structure thanks to sponsorship funding from a variety of sources to the USAA. 

The bottom line is that we dont depend on volunteers to fully fund advancement. We know their time is priceless and a 250 dollar investment brings in more in no time. Its kinda like college. So long as you get thru it in 4 or 5 years, life is good.


----------



## mcullumber (Jul 31, 2006)

To add to what Bob has said, our goals were not to have one or two clubs that just barely survive. The goal was to have many self sufficent clubs. We now have 7 in the Phoenix Metropolitan area. These clubs all have very different make-ups, but the goal of all is to create long term archers, not just run a class to introduce people to the sport. All the clubs in the Phoenis area are filled to capacity with archers willing to pay to get into the sport. At the Paseo Club in Chandler, we have a Level 4 coach, 3 Level Three coaches, 6 Level 2 instructors and we certify our JOAD Archers over the age of 15 as level 1 instructors. We work closely with the City of Chandler Parks & Recreation Department and run 6 week long archery classes. We run three classes each Saturday that are open to the entire family. They pay $100 per person for the 6 weeks. We are always at capacity with around 90 people each week. We pay our instructors $30 per hour, we pay our coaches. The city classes are our recreational archery. This is not the JOAD program. In the JOAD program, families pay $440 per year to be in the program. They receive coaching and tournament preparation. We have 30 solid JOAD Archers with families that participate and volunteer. On a side note, all of the JOAD archers have their own bows, spending a minimum of $700.00 or more each. They are invested and committed. The Paseo Club has 4 2013 Jr./Cadet USAT members.

The key is, we do not do this for free. We create a value for our programs, the parents and the archers see it and are willing to participate. Do we lose some, yes, but there are other less competitive clubs available for these archers and this is the key. Our club is no different than any other club sports program in the U.S. We as a sport need to start compensating our instructors and coaches. We need to charge enough to keep program viable. We need to stop looking at our sport in a way the says "we can't charge money because we won't grow. we will drive people away" We need to start created value and promote it. Look, the Sport of Archery is just as fun and exciting as any other Olympic sport. We just need to beat our chest a little harder, lol.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> On the other hand, it sure is high handed to tell someone else how they can or can't make a living.


Yes, it would be if that was in fact what I was doing, however you fail to understand is the difference between someone stating their opinion, and "telling" somone how they can or can't make a living. If you're going to trouble yourself with AT once again, then at least try to keep up George... 

Bob makes a good case for growing the sport, and if that's what people (like TomB) are doing with the fees, then I can support that so long as the fees are not prohibitive. But there is a significant difference in my mind between re-investing those dollars into the facility or equipment, and merely pocketing that cash. That's all I'm saying.

I am asked all the time why I don't charge for the lessons I give to kids. I won't accept payment for coaching kids for one primary reason - and I hope some of the archery coaches out there are listening.... - I have three kids who all received coaching or instruction, free of charge, in marching band, soccer, tennis, baseball, football, volleyball and golf. This was either through their school, or via city league sports. I have coached city league sports to hundreds of kids and never charged them a fee. 

Why is it any different in archery? Simply because it's an "Olympic" sport? Really?

Youth Soccer, baseball, football, etc. are all growing just fine without having the families pay the coaches. They raise money for those sports through donations, sponsors, fundraisers, etc. Please tell me why archery is any different.

We have a healthy budget for our JOAD program because of fundraisers and donations. Instead of accepting payment for coaching kids, I encourage those parents to make a donation to our JOAD club, and they are more than happy to do it. I just started an adult league in our town that will raise several hundred dollars to support the local 4-H archery program. 

There are plenty of ways to grow the sport without excluding the lower income families. Trust me.

Anything we can do to encourage more participation at a reasonable cost, I'm all for. But frankly, I tire of upper middle class people with plenty of disposable income trying to tell me "oh, it's not that expensive...!" Yea, right. 

John


----------



## montigre (Oct 13, 2008)

limbwalker said:


> Warbow, I just looked that up, and yes, it has been simplified. The $30 recert. fee is reasonable IMO.
> 
> However, most level 2 courses I've found are $150 plus travel/lodging, and most level 3 are $250 plus travel/lodging.
> 
> ...


I totally agree. I am a level 2 instructor with no real incentive to go for a higher level of certification since I shoot and compete with a compound and not recurve, so I do not fall neatly into the NTS catagory of a competitive archer. However, I am holding a level 1 course in the very near future and will only be charging the participants the cost of the materials and postage. I personally do not feel it is right for me to profit from growing the number of qualified instructors. I, on the other hand, paid $150.00 for my level 2 certification... It's up to the instructor of the classes to charge what they feel comfortable charging....


----------



## mcullumber (Jul 31, 2006)

John,

I can appreciate your dedication to growing the sport. Activities like Marching Band and sports played thru the school system are not really "free", at least here in Arizona. There are costs involved that all taxpayers pay for. Coaches, instructors are paid for what they do. Of course it is spread out more so the pain is not very much. Because of school budgets being so tight, many school here in Arizona now charge extra fees, some quite large, to cover the expense of the sport.

In recreational sports, like soccer or say little league baseball all have a great team of volunteers, mainly parents who coach. Most sports now require coaches and volunteers to have a background check done, but that is the extent of the cost. Many of these coaches played in school, have kids involved in the league. Some have no experience at all, but just like to help. In the San Tan Soccer Association in Chandler, Az they run 2000 kids though a spring and fall league. All teams have volunteer coaches, the games have paid officials, the teams have "team moms". Each child pays $130 for an eight game league. The fee covers a team shirt, field rental, equipment given to each team and officials. All the kids have a great time. This is what a recreational program is all about. I love it.

Here is where it changes. Out of those 2000 kids each session only a handful want to make a serious commitment to the sport. These kids and their parents then move into the Club Team Sports. These are Clubs that have coaches and instructors who are certified by their governing bodies, they have years of coaching experience and many are paid enough to make it a full time job. The athletes travel to tournament outside their state and parents are spending 8 to 15K for their child to be in an elite program.

Yes, the cost of these programs can eliminate those who cannot afford the cost. Many of these clubs have scholarships for some of the kids. They also have fund raisers to help with the costs for all members. We do this at Paseo. We have a program that helps with the costs of tournaments for our JOAD Team Members.

My point is that there can be many ways to do this and not everyone has to be in an "Elite" program. It takes a lot of very hard work to run any program. It takes a lot of very dedicated people to go out and raise funds for a program, write grant applications, find volunteers to coach, bring water and ice to practice ( Az is hot all the time, lots of water needed), to repair equipment, buy new equipment etc, etc. The way we run things at Paseo happens to work for us. Not all of our families are rich. I would safely say that 95% of our families are middle class, struggling with the same money issue that we all have. They scrimp and save every penny to make sure their child is able to participate in something they enjoy. We as club leaders try and make sure we keep costs down to the bare minimum, while providing the best value we can. Our club is a 501(c)(3) and it helps. It draws more donations and opens up more avenues for grants. We don't turn anyone away because they can't afford it, we find ways to enable them to afford it.

I mean no disrespect to you or any other person. Just sharing ideas. We are all in this sport together.

Our coaches are not getting rich. They get enough to cover expenses. It will never be a full time job.


----------



## mcullumber (Jul 31, 2006)

Back to John's original post. I don't believe USA Archery is telling people what to charge. They just charge for the material. The instructor can charge what they feel is right. I will say that there seems to be a "going rate" that has been charged throughout the U.S. by instructors and coaches. When I got my Level 2 certification 7 years ago it was $150 and I don't think it has changed price wise. When I got my Level 3 a few years back (taught by Coach Lloyd Brown) it was $250, so the price has not changed that I can see. There are opportunities for one to get certified to be able to teach certification classes and change lower prices or offer discounts if one is starting a new JOAD program, etc.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> Activities like Marching Band and sports played thru the school system are not really "free", at least here in Arizona. There are costs involved that all taxpayers pay for


We're coming at this from two different perspectives, I think. Probably the classic "urban vs. rural" debate we're having all over this country about all sorts of issues, it seems.

Okay, so take the school examples out of it (although many school coaches are, in fact, donating a LOT of their time that don't fall neatly on the clock) and just use municipal sports.



> Each child pays $130 for an eight game league. The fee covers a team shirt, field rental, equipment given to each team and officials. All the kids have a great time.


What you mean is that each child WHO CAN AFFORD THE $130 for an eight game league, have a great time. 

$130 for an eight game leauge would never fly in these parts. More like $30 for a 10 game league. And I see parents and kids of EVERY economic and ethnic background out there on the soccer fields every week. Not just the upper middle class folk who write checks so someone else will teach their kid.

What I'm saying is that with a little "team effort" by the adults, every family can afford to participate.

I think in larger cities, maybe people think their time is more precious than money and they would rather just write a check than donate their time. That's all fine and good for those who can afford to just "write a check" to see their little Sally or Bobby shoot archery, but for those who can't, wouldn't it be nice to have a way for their kids to play too? 

Just like, wouldn't it be nice for those veteran archers out there who are on a fixed income to be included in the coaching pool? Are we selecting coaches based on disposable income, or on level of experience and ability to coach?

We need to guard against the first every chance we get if our interest is to truly make this sport accessible to people of all economic backgrounds. That is our goal, isn't it? Or are we satisfied to look down the line and see the same demographic we've been seeing for decades now?

Mike, this idea that I need to be "compensated" for my time is a slippery slope that I'm afraid we're on. I think it's part of what's wrong with this country these days. People aren't stepping up to volunteer anymore unless there is something in it for them. We see this in all sorts of community organizations anymore. 

Another coach told me the other day that if I charged for lessons, I could do more. HOW? Money doesn't buy me more time. I'm going to donate my time whether or not I'm paid, so exactly how does money in my pocket equate to me, or anyone else, having more time to donate? Instead, the only affect of charging a fee is to skew the demographic of the students I work with.

And volunteering one's time to help kids should be it's own reward for pete's sake.

Again, just the opinion of a no-account small-town coach here...

John


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

So, back on-topic...

I completely agree with TomB that the two roadblocks to growing our sport are going to be 1) facilities, and 2) coaches.

The cost of facilities are unique to each program, and I'm not trying to address that in this discussion.

But the cost of coaching, and training coaches, is pretty consistent. Which leads me to wonder why I see such a HUGE disparity between the cost of some level 2 and 3 trainings and others. Since I started this thread, I've been PM'd by 3 individuals who told me they only charged the cost of materials for conducting their level 2 or level 3 coaching clinics. I'm sure they didn't want to "expose" themeselves here to become cannon fodder, but if they can do it, why can't everyone? What's the deal?

We can save the discussion about the how to pay for facilities, targets, bows, range time, etc. for another thread. This is just about creating more certified coaches out of the pool of qualified people who are already out there...

If having to pay $150 or $250 to receive their level 2 or 3 coaching cert. is what's standing in the way of us growing the coaching pool, then IMO, we should re-evaluate our goals. Ability to pay and ability to coach have absolutely nothing to do with one another.

John


----------



## mcullumber (Jul 31, 2006)

I do agree with what you are saying. Each area, each community needs to do what they are able to do. My biggest fear and this is a problem with all clubs, no matter what economic place they are in, is that they do not grow their base. We all know that in most clubs out there there are 2 or 3 people who do everything. They spend their time and many spend their own money promoting the sport. What happens in that when these people decide to retire or just move on the club collapses and goes away. We have all seen it, no matter what the sport is. What I think we are both saying is that there are plenty of opportunities out there to make this work. We can't depend on USA Archery for everything and we shouldn't. They should be just one of the resources we use. Unfortunately, like most things, sports have become expensive in the U.S. and economics will always play a part. Sports have become expensive to play and to watch. One part of me hopes that archery will become so popular that we can charge people to come and watch a tournament. The other part of me would feel kind of sad if that would happen.

You are right about people just want to send a check instead of donating their time. I get this from seasoned archers. They would rather give us money than spend the time. We need people to spend the time. So, we use their money to pay someone to spend the time. Sad, but true.

Keep up the good work. I enjoy your perspective always. It is good to be able to hear what others are doing to grow the sport. I guess that is part of what AT is all about.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Thanks.



> Unfortunately, like most things, sports have become expensive in the U.S. and economics will always play a part. Sports have become expensive to play and to watch.


It doesn't have to be this way. In fact, we should work hard to ensure that it's NOT this way. Every kid, regardless of income or ethnic background, should see a sport they are interested in, and have a legitimate chance to try it. 

Most especially a centuries-old, simple sport like Archery.

There are things we can do in archery to make it more like soccer or little league baseball or youth volleyball. Those sports usually feature volunteer coaches who are not paid to be there, and have limited equipment costs, and that's why you see so much participation. One of the ways we can do this with archery is to keep the equipment costs low. Simply adding barebow to the JOAD program is a VERY EASY WAY TO DO THIS. This will immediately end the "arms race" we see in our sport when kids start shooting out of the Bowman and Cub levels, for those who simply don't have the means to keep pace. 

Adding a NASP or Genesis bow division could do the same. 

But if the sport needs more coaches, then we have to do whatever we can to see to it that happens. Because more coaches means more happy archers and more happy parents. And that means more support for our programs whether in time, or donations or fund raisers.

John


----------



## Blades (Jun 25, 2012)

Not to add fuel to the fire, but I finally found a level 3 coach in my area. 

He charges $25 for a half hour. No discounts for an hour, or for a package.

I realize that he is trying to make some of his fee money back, but he also owns a successful archery shop and has for the past 38 years. There is no way I can afford him, nor would I go with him even if I could. That is just insane prices, considering I took my cousin shooting in LA this summer, and got a bow rental, 1 hour lesson and all day shooting for the same price. And at a legitimate range too, not in his garage range. So I am back to self coaching and reading books. Im picking up McKinney's book soon, hopefully it will help.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Blades said:


> Not to add fuel to the fire, but I finally found a level 3 coach in my area.
> 
> He charges $25 for a half hour. No discounts for an hour, or for a package.
> 
> I realize that he is trying to make some of his fee money back, but he also owns a successful archery shop and has for the past 38 years. There is no way I can afford him, nor would I go with him even if I could. That is just insane prices, considering I took my cousin shooting in LA this summer, and got a bow rental, 1 hour lesson and all day shooting for the same price. And at a legitimate range too, not in his garage range. So I am back to self coaching and reading books. Im picking up McKinney's book soon, hopefully it will help.


Just saying he's a level 3 doesn't tell us whether private instruction from him is worth $50/hr--there are lots of level threes, and they range from underqualified, bad coaches, to truly excellent coaches. Around here you'll pay $50/hr for instruction from Stanford college archery team members. But elsewhere in the country your kids can get instruction from a former Olympic team member and former dream team coach for free (IIRC). Prices and value are all over the map. The common trope in economics is that something is worth what people will pay for it--so that guy isn't worth $50/hr, to you. But for someone else? He might be just the thing, the right combination of expertise and quality service at a time and place that person can afford.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> But elsewhere in the country your kids can get instruction from a former Olympic team member and former dream team coach for free (IIRC).


I hear someone like that is coaching 'round here. Wonder who that is???


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

John, I totally see your point, but what happens if and when you quit or leave? There will be a huge hole in what you have done and most will not want to follow in your footsteps for free. I guess I am saying that it is important to find that happy middle ground where there is a motivation attached to what you have been doing versus another person picking up the responsibility. 

I like what Mike and the rest of the AZ crowd is doing. They are making a working business model that helps everyone involved, not just a few. Thus, you get motivation from both sides of the fence.


----------



## Blades (Jun 25, 2012)

Warbow said:


> Just saying he's a level 3 doesn't tell us whether private instruction from him is worth $50/hr--there are lots of level threes, and they range from underqualified, bad coaches, to truly excellent coaches. Around here you'll pay $50/hr for instruction from Stanford college archery team members. But elsewhere in the country your kids can get instruction from a former Olympic team member and former dream team coach for free (IIRC). Prices and value are all over the map. The common trope in economics is that something is worth what people will pay for it--so that guy isn't worth $50/hr, to you. But for someone else? He might be just the thing, the right combination of expertise and quality service at a time and place that person can afford.


True enough, good point. Im sure he is a decent coach. Don't know if he would work well with me, and I don't care/ cant afford to find out for $50 an hour. Im sure he would give good instruction, he has been around for quite a while, but its just not worth it for me at this point. The point I was trying to make was exactly what you said. People can get coaching from former olympians for free. It would be nice to have that all over the place, but alas that just isnt the case, and I know it wont be. It would be nice however to have reasonable prices (and coaches) across the board. As a college student I have to be really tight with cash, so for now, self disciplined instruction is the way to go.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> I hear someone like that is coaching 'round here. Wonder who that is???


Not sure why there is a  attached to that. I think of your dedication to archery, and your generous volunteerism, in the most complimentary way. I didn't mention your name in that context because I was trying to write more generally and I wasn't sure if you'd want me to or not in that context (and anyone who follows this thread, and this forum, would know who I'm referring to). Looks like I guessed wrong. I think I praise you enough in this forum for your work that an omission of your name in one post does not merit a  .


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Blades said:


> It would be nice however to have reasonable prices (and coaches) across the board. As a college student I have to be really tight with cash, so for now, self disciplined instruction is the way to go.


Well, it is smart to be careful with your funds. 

As to having more coaches, there are a number of ways to think about that. John thinks coach instruction should be as affordable as possible, perhaps free, to help get as many coaches trained as possible. I think that is a great idea. On the other hand, another way to get more coaches out there is to encourage sustainable programs like AZJOAD which pay their staff. More paid positions likely means more coaches--and coaches who can afford to pay for coaching classes.

I really like that John does what he does, and strongly advocates for more people to do it. It is good for people and for the sport. I also think that what AZJOAD is doing is doing is good for the sport.


----------



## target1 (Jan 16, 2007)

I paid out the ying-yang for my coach, but I only saw him once every three months or so. Worth every penny in my estimation.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Rick, different strokes, I guess.

I still don't see how money solves the time or the motivation issue. If it takes money to motivate someone to help kids learn archery, well, I won't say what I'm thinking there...

And I'm not sure you're getting my point. Reducing or waiving fees for coaching courses would create MORE qualified coaches by removing one of the bigger roadblocks for many to earning a coaching certificate.

Paying for range time, equipment, etc. is a seperate issue completely, but if that's what coaching fees are going towards, then people should just donate to that need and remove the "middleman." 

When my archer's parents make a voluntary donation to our JOAD club in exchange for individual instruction, they know that money is going to buy target bales, target faces and other supplies for operating the club. But if they can't afford to pay me for individual instruction, I don't want that to stop their child from getting the help they need. I don't think anyone wants to see children in lower income homes be excluded from our sport.

Okay, maybe some, but nobody I know.

John


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Warbow, you got all that out of a  ???

Dude, relax.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> Warbow, you got all that out of a  ???
> 
> Dude, relax.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Okay, that's more like it... ha, ha, ha.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> In the JOAD program, families pay $440 per year to be in the program.


We'd have to close up shop.


----------



## mcullumber (Jul 31, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> We'd have to close up shop.


 Based on Soccer leagues at $30 for 10 games, I can see why! The thing is, we all just need to do whatever works for our parts of the country. Even in the Phoenix area, the JOAD clubs are all different, catering to different people and expectations. Some, charge very little and have a very recreational type program. A bunch of archers who come out each Saturday to fling arrows. Nothing wrong with it, it works for them and they teach plenty of people the basics of the sport. Some of those families want more and migrate to a club that can give them what they are looking for. We are fortunate that we have a bunch of program within 20 miles of each other. W are real fortunate that we are all swamped. We could probably sustain three or four new clubs.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

But one could infer from your assessment that the clubs that charge less offer lower quality instruction. If that's the case, then why is that? 

Where is it written that beginner programs are more affordable than elite programs? If anything, elite programs should be more affordable since the coaches generally work with fewer, more diciplined students and it should be EASIER to get coaches to volunteer to do this, not harder. 

I coach in both a JOAD program and a 4-H program. If I were going to accept payment for either, it would be 4-H!! ha, ha. Dealing with a room full of beginning archers is a whole lot more taxing on me than spending an hour or two with my well-trained JOAD archers. 

I think people just get by with the notion that if it's a higher level instruction, somehow then can talk people into paying more. I've yet to see money turn into time. Time is time. More money can't do anything to make more time.




> we all just need to do whatever works for our parts of the country


Please tell me what part of the country it is where higher fees work better, and to what end? Because from where I sit, if someone can pay less, they think that works better!


Again, back on topic...

What I want to know from USArchery is whether they think a level 2 certification that cost $150 or a level 3 that cost $250 more valuable than one that cost $30? 

I think this is a real question for USArchery. After all, it's USArchery's certification that a person is receiving, not one from a specific coach.

There is too large a discrepancy between what one instructor charges for level 2 or 3 training and the next. And that's a real problem for USArchery, I think. Because it implies that one is worth more than the other, even though they should both carry the same weight.

If a personal coach wants to charge $100/hour for thier time, I could care less. I hope for the sake of their students, they are worth every penny. Heck, some coaches ARE worth $100/hour IMO. As far as personal lessons go, charge what you think you can charge if that's what floats your boat. This is America. Let the market decide what you're worth... 

But I'm talking about USArchery-sanctioned training courses here. This isn't, or shouldn't be a "one coach is better so they can charge more for a level 3 course" situation. If the levels are going to MEAN anything, one person's level 3 course is just as valuable as the next. If not, then why have levels at all? 

In the interest of the organization, there should be a set fee an instructor can charge for conducting a coaching certification course, in addition to whatever REAL expenses they may have to cover. 

Having one coach charge $250, and the next just charge for materials sends very mixed messages to those seeking certification, and tells me there's a problem with the system.

John


----------



## TheAncientOne (Feb 14, 2007)

I coach JOAD for one of the local ranges. The range owner doesn't charge extra for JOAD and I don't charge for my time. I was already coaching my son and 3 of his friends when the range owner asked me to set up a JOAD program. Since I'm there anyway I don't feel like I'm being short changed. 

I am taking my Level III training this weekend and my plan is to train some of the parents as Level II instructors so that I can take a day off once and a while.

TAO


----------



## shootemstraight (Jan 13, 2007)

We're getting ready to host a level 2 this weekend for a total cost of $75, including lunch on Saturday. Our instructor is coming quite a ways to conduct the class and deserves to receive some compensation for spending a weekend away from home. We had several people decide to not take the class based on price. Most of those taking the class are doing so for the insurance coverage (because they already help at a local JOAD program).

The price involved with attending a level 3 class is definitely prohibitive. And, I don't see the value. I give countless hours to our JOAD program. I don't think it should cost me hundreds (probably closer to a $1000) to attend a higher level class in order to be a VOLUNTEER. Having a piece of paper does not make one a "coach". I also contend that there is a HUGE difference between knowing the mechanics and knowing how to COACH (especially a child!).

I liken archery in our area to local soccer programs. There are recreational teams and travel teams. The overwhelming focus of archery in our area is "recreational". There are no other youth archery organizations in our area for children looking to get into the sport (no 4-H, NASP, etc). So, the JOAD program at the local sportsman club is it. These kids join in order to learn the sport, have fun, and go to each other's (local) clubs for tournaments. Some clubs don't even have many children interested in the local tournaments. But, what I see is that most of these kids end up really enjoying the SPORT.

Sure, I would like to hear what's being taught these days at level 3 classes, but truly, if I come across the extra money, I'm spending it on some new arrows!


----------



## TheAncientOne (Feb 14, 2007)

shootemstraight said:


> I don't think it should cost me hundreds (probably closer to a $1000) to attend a higher level class...


Level III @ Lancaster Archery this weekend $95. Should be in your neighborhood.

TAO


----------



## shootemstraight (Jan 13, 2007)

TheAncientOne said:


> Level III @ Lancaster Archery this weekend $95. Should be in your neighborhood.
> 
> TAO


Yes, ironically, this is the same weekend that we are hosting our level 2 class (which I am in charge of). However, even to attend Lancaster's class, it would be $250-$350 for a hotel, $50 in gas, and $95 in registration fee. That $400 will be spent elsewhere, however, I thought Lancaster's registration fee is reasonable & this is the first level 3 I've seen "locally" in a long time (maybe "forever"?).


----------



## spangler (Feb 2, 2007)

http://www.teamusa.org/USA-Archery/Programs/Coaching/Coach-Education-Grants.aspx

There is grant money available from USA Archery also.

As mentioned before, I spent maybe 500 on my level 3 between lodging, fuel, and class costs.

I felt it was worth it.

Andrew


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

TheAncientOne said:


> Level III @ Lancaster Archery this weekend $95. Should be in your neighborhood.
> 
> TAO


Sweet! Now that's more like it. 

Again, USArchery needs to get on top of this. One Level 3 costing $95 and the next costing $250 is just ridiculous.

John


----------



## spangler (Feb 2, 2007)

http://www.teamusa.org/USA-Archery/Programs/Junior-Olympic-Archery-Development/JOAD-Grants.aspx

Ann Hoyt/Jim Easton JOAD Grant can also be requested and used for certification purposes.


----------



## shootemstraight (Jan 13, 2007)

spangler - thanks for the grant information. I wasn't aware that the USAA still did that. It was a HUGE help when we started the JOAD program at our club!!!


----------



## TomB (Jan 28, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> Sweet! Now that's more like it.
> 
> Again, USArchery needs to get on top of this. One Level 3 costing $95 and the next costing $250 is just ridiculous.
> 
> John


John,
I don't mean to be augmentative here, but who decides what is reasonable to charge? You? Unless USA Archery wants to hire all of us as employees, they cannot legally dictate what we charge to teach a class. We are independent contractors and if we all decided among ourselves what to charge, that is collusion. Folks go to jail for that. Just a casual glance at the news on ebook prices and airline fares will get one into accusations of collusion. Sorry, basic economics. We all have to make those value decisions. Is the $30/hour plumber that much worse than the $200/hr plumber? Or the lawyer or the electrician? 

I am doing a level 1 this weekend for 15 or so folks. I plan on giving them alot more than the minimum essential in the Basic Archery Instruction book. Basically, I will cover how to survive a youth archery program and maintain your sanity. Some folks see value in me doing that. I happen to charge less than others for this class but that is my business and I don't really care what someone else charges. And, I don't feel guilty if someone charges less. This is what I value my time at. USA Archery should only care that I meet the minimum requirements to convey the materials to my students. How USA Archery determines if the students are getting the minimum essential is a different matter entirely and is worth debating.

I know you are just giving your opinion, but your opinion is influential. "Well if John says $250 is ridiculous, then it must not be worth going to." All I am saying is you don't get to decide. The customer does. And, it is not appropriate for USA Archery to dictate fees for independent contractors. IF you get your way, there will be fewer classes offered because there will be fewer teachers who value their time at what USA Archery is willing to pay and it will ultimately be more expensive to the consumer.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Tom, I offer my opinion and it's up to people to decide for themselves. It's that simple. 

As a parent and a JOAD coach, yes, I do think paying $250 for a level 3 certification course is pretty absurd, and I feel we'd have a lot more level 2 and 3 coaches out there than we have now if the fees weren't so high. And more qualified coaches is what you and I both agree is needed. So what's the problem?

Show me WHY it needs to cost that much, and I could be convinced. Facility rent? Okay, I get that. Travel and lodging for the coach? Okay, I guess I can get that if they absolutely must travel to put on the training. But there are so many youth athletic facilities or schools that will donate their space for a training program like this, why should the facility rental be an issue?

A better question is this: Show me WHY a level 3 course with 15 students should cost a cent more than a level 2 course, or a level 1 course with the same number of students. Anyone who wants to make their argument can chime right in.

My time is my time. It's no different if I'm teaching a kid who just picked a bow at a yard sale yesterday, or I'm coaching a prospective USAT archer. It's still the same amount of time. Why is one suddenly "worth" more than another? Because of what they're willing to pay? I don't agree with that logic.

Tom, I don't need to be reminded that I "don't get to decide." Relax. I'm just offering a perspective here. And interestingly enough, it's one that I've discovered quite a few people happen to agree with. 

Do I think things will change within USArchery? Not necessarily. I realize it's a complicated issue. But I still would like someone to at least answer the question as to why one level 3 course costs $95 and the next costs $250.

So far, nobody really has.

John


----------



## target1 (Jan 16, 2007)

John, I agree with your assesment that fees, any fees for archery are way out of line for the youth.

Tom, I agree that no one should be able to dictate pricing.

But the reality is, that many "coaches" have turned this into a business. They are in it for the money. As bad as that seems, it is the truth. If someone is willing to pay, there are people willing to recieve. The sad part is, that usually the consumer has no clue as to what is good "coaching" or bad, until they have already parted ways with their hard earned cash. Not everyone in archery has pure motives.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I think I was pretty clear that a coach should be free to charge whatever they want for their personal coaching. But for covering the required material in a level "x" course, I don't see how anyone can justify one course costing more than another. The end result is basically the same when it hits the streets. A Level 3 is a level 3. We don't get to say we have a level "3.5" certification. 

So, charge a consistent fee across the board for the coaching certifications, then if an instructor wants to add a half day or a full day or whatever, for additional coaching instruction, then charge whatever you think people will pay for that.

When you go down to the DMV (okay, probably not the best example, but it's the first one that came to mind) and pass their test, you get a driver's license. Better drivers don't get a "better" driver's license. Everyone walks out of there with the same license, paying the same fee, regardless of whether they are an excellent driver or they are about to cause a wreck on their way home.

When a level 3 coach advertises their coaching credentials, they don't get to say "I took my level 3 course from "..." therefore I'm a better level 3 coach than the level 3 coach down the street." A level 3 is a level 3 is a level 3. If it's not, then what exactly is the point of having coaching levels? The two scenarios are irreconcileable. 

John


----------



## Mulcade (Aug 31, 2007)

We don't know where the money ends up going outside of the cost of materials. Some could go for gas/lodging/food for the instructor. Some may donate some of it back to the club they are a part of. When I teach a course, part of what I get goes to doing something nice for the family. When I give up my time, I'm not the only person that has claim to my time. My family gives that up as well and they don't get the same personal rewards that I do. So, I do something nice for them to say thanks.

What if I were working two jobs, or had a job that requires me to work weekends? I'd have to give up paid hours in order to teach the course. I wouldn't think it unreasonable to try to recoup some of that loss. Sure, you can use vacation time for that, but again, the time that I give up doesn't just belong to me.

Maybe some of us set aside some of what we get so that we can give scholarships to someone that would make a great coach, but doesn't have the resources to pay for the class.

On the other hand, what happens when we start teaching the courses for the cost of materials? Take the average Tom, Dick, and Harry. If Tom were to take a lvl2 course and paid $25 to take it and Harry takes the same class for $150, which one of them is more likely to come away with the most knowledge and understanding? Let's assume the courses were exactly the same except for the cost. I would argue Harry would come away better equipped than Tom simply because he had more invested in the course.

I know that is a gross oversimplification, but it still holds true. You have to be careful when you give things away as it ends up losing its value after a time. It's important that the training maintains a value otherwise either everyone will have it, or no one will want it.


----------



## Serious Fun (May 12, 2003)

We let supply and demand apply. The poor courses or the ones that are over priced have few takers if any. The good course priced appropriately are full and often. Poor course instructors fade away. The judge of the course are the students. Maybe we need a Yelp or TripAdvisor for certification instructors, judging courses, tournaments, pro shops, etc. "ArcheryAdvisor" and then let people comment and those interested comment or reply...


----------



## TomB (Jan 28, 2003)

Level 1 about 8 hours
Level 2 about 15 hours
Level 3 about 20 hours
I should charge the same for all three John?

Your drivers license analogy is truer than you think. The cost to test and receive the drivers license is set and uniform. The preparation to take that test is variable. Mom or Dad can do the prep. You can do it through some of the schools driver education courses. You can buy software to study at home. Finally, you can hire a private firm to prepare your little munchkin to take the test. A similar business model exists for college entrance tests. Maybe we can agree that USA Archery puts the testing and materials on line at a uniform cost and you do or go to whomever you want to prepare you for the coaches certification tests. If you can test out without having to open a book, then go for it. But, if you need some help to get up to speed, then there it is. I do know I could not have passed Coach Lee's Regional Coach test and practical without being in the class and hearing the material.

I hope folks don't loose sight of the big picture, I am just super happy there is an instructor/ coach development program in USA Archery.


----------



## TomB (Jan 28, 2003)

Serious Fun said:


> We let supply and demand apply. The poor courses or the ones that are over priced have few takers if any. The good course priced appropriately are full and often. Poor course instructors fade away. The judge of the course are the students. Maybe we need a Yelp or TripAdvisor for certification instructors, judging courses, tournaments, pro shops, etc. "ArcheryAdvisor" and then let people comment and those interested comment or reply...



How about instead of "Angies List" we have "Limbwalker's List". Just kidding John. But, there is a market for "endorsed local providers" ala Dave Ramsey.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Bob, did it ever cross your mind that perhaps the connection there is not the "poor course vs. moderately priced course" but rather that those attending the poorer courses were less likely to continue because of the overall cost of the sport of archery? There is a pretty direct relationship. If the only people we teach are those who can afford $250 courses, then yea, there will be a higher retention rate because it's an expensive sport in the first place. 

The idea of a rating system for coaching courses isn't a bad one. An "Angie's list" for archery coaches. Man, would that shake things up! LOL! You rebel you.... 



> I would argue Harry would come away better equipped than Tom simply because he had more invested in the course.


Mulcade, there is a segment of the population that does indeed feel that something is only worth what they paid for it. I actually feel sorry for those people because they end up cheerfully hemmoraging cash with no more to show for it than the next person.

What I'd ask is not whether Harry is better equipped than Tom, but whether Joe never attended because of the cost...

John


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> Level 1 about 8 hours
> Level 2 about 15 hours
> Level 3 about 20 hours
> I should charge the same for all three John?


Tom, that's the explanation I was looking for in the first place. Thanks.



> If you can test out without having to open a book, then go for it. But, if you need some help to get up to speed, then there it is.


I'd be fine with that. Again, it's the certification we're talking about here. How you attain that knowlege should be up to you.

So, Tom, when you're donating your time to coach kids, do you apply the same hourly rate? Or is it different for coaching, say, a level 1 vs. a level 2 vs. a level 3 course?


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

TomB said:


> John,
> I don't mean to be augmentative here, but who decides what is reasonable to charge? You? Unless USA Archery wants to hire all of us as employees, they cannot legally dictate what we charge to teach a class. We are independent contractors and if we all decided among ourselves what to charge, that is collusion. Folks go to jail for that. Just a casual glance at the news on ebook prices and airline fares will get one into accusations of collusion. Sorry, basic economics. We all have to make those value decisions. Is the $30/hour plumber that much worse than the $200/hr plumber? Or the lawyer or the electrician?


Seems to me USAA archery may be in a position to dictate what people charge. They can make it a contractual issue. They don't have to issue certs and they can make the issuance of the certs subject to contractual terms, such as a maximum price. If you don't like it you don't have to be a USAA coach or offer USAA coaching classes. Vertical price fixing is not illegal. See http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/96-871.ZO.html If, however, all coaches were to get together and agree to fixed prices (especially if across different coaching orgs), which would be horizontal price fixing, that would be different. IANAL. I could be wrong on this.

But, I'm not arguing that USAA archery should do that, only that there is likely a legal way it could.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> When you go down to the DMV (okay, probably not the best example, but it's the first one that came to mind) and pass their test, you get a driver's license. Better drivers don't get a "better" driver's license. Everyone walks out of there with the same license, paying the same fee, regardless of whether they are an excellent driver or they are about to cause a wreck on their way home.
> 
> When a level 3 coach advertises their coaching credentials, they don't get to say "I took my level 3 course from "..." therefore I'm a better level 3 coach than the level 3 coach down the street."


Yeah, actually, I think they pretty much do get to say that. Not the "there for I'm definitely better" but therefore I likely had a better instructor. In an ideal world all teachers of a Level 3 course would be equally qualified, but in the real world that isn't true any more than a BA from Podunk Community College is worth the same as one from Harvard (though I think there are some excellent instructors at community colleges, people who teach for a living rather than do research for a living and teach only grudgingly, as found in many high-end colleges.)

For some people the L3 may be like a driver's license, but for me it is also chance to learn something over and above what I can get from a book or the course material, so if I'm going to take 3 days off and spend some money on it I'm going to prefer the best instructor I can get--not for bragging rights, but because there is a chance I'll learn more from them. The two scenarios are very much reconcilable, and overlapping.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Well, seeing as the instructor is only half the equasion, one level 3 still isn't the same as the next. 

So, a person can pay more, or not, get in front of a better instructor, or not, and still be a great "level x" coach, or not... 

Again though, why do we assume that by paying more, we're getting better instruction. That's a marketing trap that too many fall into. Actually, too many are willing to JUMP into...

John


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> Well, seeing as the instructor is only half the equasion, one level 3 still isn't the same as the next.
> 
> So, a person can pay more, or not, get in front of a better instructor, or not, and still be a great "level x" coach, or not...
> 
> ...


Yes, it is common to assume that more expensive means better. It is a built in-human cognitive bias, but it is typically stronger in the absence of better data, especially for things like buying wine (see "Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion" by Robert Cialdini).

I know you by reputation, by your posts. I think I'd want to take a class from you. You are opinionated and hard nosed, but bristling with knowledge and experience I trust. Seems like you'd not only teach the course, but also stuff that isn't in the course, and maybe even mention some caveats and disagreements with the course material if you thought it important for your students to know them. But other coaches? I've got less information about them. :dontknow: So, frankly, a class by you would be worth more to me than a class by most other instructors.

I don't think this needs to be all or nothing, expensive or free. Some folks charge on a sliding scale--though it can be hard to judge exactly how to do that.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Maybe we do need an "Angie's list" for archery coaches then...

Man, do I know some coaches who would be looking to kill that one though. LOL!

But for those highly regarded coaches out there, wouldn't it be nice if they could cite a "five star" rating on Bob's "Archery Advisor" or something like that?


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

Warbow said:


> Seems to me USAA archery may be in a position to dictate what people charge. They can make it a contractual issue. They don't have to issue certs and they can make the issuance of the certs subject to contractual terms, such as a maximum price. If you don't like it you don't have to be a USAA coach or offer USAA coaching classes. *Vertical price fixing is not illegal*. See http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/96-871.ZO.html If, however, all coaches were to get together and agree to fixed prices (especially if across different coaching orgs), which would be horizontal price fixing, that would be different. IANAL. I could be wrong on this.
> 
> But, I'm not arguing that USAA archery should do that, only that there is likely a legal way it could.


That Supreme Court decision said vertical price fixing is illegal, but it must be proven to be unreasonable. "Although the Sherman Act, by its terms, prohibits every agreement “in restraint of trade,” this Court has long recognized that Congress intended to outlaw only unreasonable restraints." 

So the question is, would a USAA ceiling (or floor) on what instructors can charge be an unreasonable restraint of trade? 

If there were a contractual arrangement, I think we could refer to this as a USAA "network", you are either in "in-network" or "out-of-network" instructor. If only in-network instructors can be certified, is that an unreasonable restraint of trade? 

So you raise an interesting question, is restraint of trade limited to price fixing?


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Seattlepop said:


> That Supreme Court decision said vertical price fixing is illegal, but it must be proven to be unreasonable. "Although the Sherman Act, by its terms, prohibits every agreement “in restraint of trade,” this Court has long recognized that Congress intended to outlaw only unreasonable restraints."


Wouldn't that be the same as saying vertical price fixing is legal, unless it is proven specifically to be unreasonable? That is, vertical price fixing is not "per se" illegal?


----------



## spangler (Feb 2, 2007)

Warbow said:


> Wouldn't that be the same as saying vertical price fixing is legal, unless it is proven specifically to be unreasonable? That is, vertical price fixing is not "per se" illegal?


Archery discussion at its finest.


----------



## Mulcade (Aug 31, 2007)

limbwalker said:


> So, Tom, when you're donating your time to coach kids, do you apply the same hourly rate? Or is it different for coaching, say, a level 1 vs. a level 2 vs. a level 3 course?


It's very much different. Coaching you fit into your weekly schedule. It's expected, you know what parts of your time you'll be investing each week. Teaching the course requires all the time be spent all at once over the course of one to three days. That means the instructor has to rearrange the regular scheduled events in order to block out that time to teach the course. Courses aren't regularly scheduled events and they can be very random. 

They also require a higher level of commitment than coaching does in that you can miss a day when you're coaching because Johnny's baseball game got rained out last week and got rescheduled for this week during JOAD practice. If the instructor has to skip out on a day of providing training, the course gets cancelled unless there's someone who can step in.

-Kevin


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

spangler said:


> Archery discussion at its finest.


It is directly relevant to the OP, spangler. Weather USAA can legally limit the price coaches charge for coaching classes depends, in part, on the SCOTUS decision I cited. Sometimes simple questions have complex answers.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Kevin, all good points.

So, aside from the extended time committment, are there valid reasons that a level 1 course should be more affordable than a level 3?

If so, what are they?


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> Kevin, all good points.
> 
> So, aside from the extended time committment, are there valid reasons that a level 1 course should be more affordable than a level 3?
> 
> If so, what are they?


More training and experience is required to be able to teach the higher level courses. It is pretty usual to pay more for that. Not saying it should be that way for USAA classes, just that it follows usual expectations to do so.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Even if the same person is teaching them?


----------



## Mulcade (Aug 31, 2007)

limbwalker said:


> Kevin, all good points.
> 
> So, aside from the extended time committment, are there valid reasons that a level 1 course should be more affordable than a level 3?
> 
> If so, what are they?


The material being taught and the expertise/experience of the person teaching. The expertise/experience really has more effect on which levels can be taught more than the material that is actually given. Though, I would argue that Tom's lvl1 and lvl2 courses would be more in depth than mine because of his experience, but that would be instruction over and above the required material.

EDIT: To expand on the materials, the difference between the levels is more of an exponential increase than a linear. Each step up you go in the ladder, you get exposed to new aspects of teaching and coaching. The material you get on the NTS method largely stays the same, you just get more refinement as you progress. The huge strides definitely come in how you relate to the athletes as you progress in level.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> Even if the same person is teaching them?


Depends. From the "Driver's License"/"I just want a piece of paper" perspective, L1 and L2 classes can be taught by more people, so there is more competition, so, yes, even an experienced person teaching a lower level class might have to lower prices. From the "I want to learn as much as I can from a great instructor" perspective, a more experienced instructor could charge more and some people would be willing to charge for it. I was a tad jealous of my fellow instructors who got their L2 certs from Sheri Rhodes a while back :mg: I'd pay extra for that--though I don't believe they had to. But maybe I'm just star struck :dontknow:

On the other hand, some top level coaches may suck at teaching low level archery skills. It isn't what they do day to day. So sometimes the people who are better at teaching L1 classes and L2 classes to rank beginners are people who teach those kind of classes more often and a "higher level" instructor might not be better for that purpose.


----------



## TomB (Jan 28, 2003)

John, my per hour rate including the prep time is actually lower on the level 3 than 2 and then 1. It is one of the reasons I choose not to do too many level 3 courses. I value my leisure time (little that i have according to my wife) more and more. I used to charge $5 over the cost of materials for a level 1 but after the hundred or so instructors I did, very few ever appreciated the value I was giving them and used what I taught. So, I raised my fee and now I get more folks who are more serious. I still price it what I think is a good value and test that by asking them if they got their money's worth. I think I am when I get so many affirmative answers and occasional negotiable thank yous (tips).

As to the minimum retail price maintenance (rpm) and vertical price fixing. I really don't think USA Archery wants to test this and the legal ramifications. I for one would run like my hair was on fire if I was to be contractually obligated to USA archery for the courses I am teaching. I simply do not want to be dependent on USA archery.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

TomB said:


> I simply do not want to be dependent on USA archery.


You already are. They control all of the course requirements and who may teach them.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Tom, that's what I was thinking.

The theory I'm trying to wrap my mind around is what Kevin says:



> The material being taught and the expertise/experience of the person teaching.


If the expertise stays the same (same instructor) and the materials cost is negligible, then why are people charging more for higher level courses? Because they think they can? 

Am I the only one here who's having a hard time with the idea of paying an individual hundreds of dollars for a certification that ultimately comes from USArchery? Especially if I can just wait and find an instructor who is willing to conduct the same training for 1/3 the price?

It just seems like nobody is minding the store here. A crap instructor can set up a level 3 training for $250/head and pocket a couple grand, while a much more qualified instructor hosts a level 3 training for $70/head. At the end of the day, the newly certified level 3 instructor gets the same USArchery certification either way, but those who paid the $250 are by nature going to think they got the better course.

Ahhh, I just love human nature. Don't you?

John


----------



## TomB (Jan 28, 2003)

Warbow said:


> You already are. They control all of the course requirements and who may teach them.


Respectfully disagree. I don't have to teach and I can charge what I want. They can restrict my ability to teach if I don't maintain my certification, but I am not contractually obligated to do anything for them. We have an arms length arrangement.

If USA archery goes away, I can still teach kids to shoot bows. Or not. My choice. It may be a distinction without a difference but I still feel free enought to do what I want with or without USA archery.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> Ahhh, I just love human nature. Don't you?
> 
> John


It's something you can count on 

I have to say, though, that 1-weekend seminars are a lousy way to learn stuff. The retention is not great when you learn stuff all at once and don't get any follow up.

I watched newly certified Level 1 instructor try to teach beginning archery students a week or two later (he wasn't part of our staff but he was earnest and wanted more experience be fore teaching camp kids on his own, so he arranged to teach a few beginning students he brought with him to our facility, or something like that). Oh, it was painful to watch--so much he tried to teach that was really wrong. And it was tricky to provide positive, corrective feedback to him in a way that didn't diminish his authority with his students. 

I don't know what the problem was since I wasn't at his Level One class. I don't think it was the way the class was taught vs. any other similar level 1 class, but more generally that a 1-day introduction to all of archery and archery instruction is too much for a newbie to absorb and retain. And I think the same is true in varying degrees will the other cert classes.

So, as much as the issue of cost for certs is important in general, I think we also need to try to make them more effective. Getting together in person with a qualified instructor is the part that costs the most money (in time, gas, facilities, equipment (if needed) and housing, if nothing else) then the best way to help improve the retention of the materials is likely to make them available on-line, or in printed form, well in advance of the class so students will already know the basic course material by the time they get there, and they will then get *re-enforcement* rather than learning it for the first time on the spot. This, I think, is important because *lectures turn out to be one of the least effective ways of teaching*, but we are so used to the idea of learning by lectures that we just assume they are effective.

http://americanradioworks.publicrad...ows-college/lectures/rethinking-teaching.html
https://www.npr.org/2012/01/01/144550920/physicists-seek-to-lose-the-lecture-as-teaching-tool



> Research conducted over the past few decades shows it's impossible for students to take in and process all the information presented during a typical lecture, and yet this is one of the primary ways college students are taught, particularly in introductory courses.
> 
> It's a tradition going back thousands of years.
> 
> ...


So, if reducing cost is an issue, the cert courses should put all the lecture stuff on-line or in print/video and save the in person stuff for answering questions and actually practicing and modeling behavior. That could reduce costs and/or increase retention.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> Respectfully disagree. I don't have to teach and I can charge what I want.


Tom, neither of those points are what Warbow was saying. His points that 1) USArchery controls the course requirements, and 2) who may teach them, are in fact correct. So, if you want to certify coaches with USArchery certifications, you are required to teach their material and be a USArchery qualified instructor (who had to learn their material to earn the certification). 

We don't get to just go out and host an archery instruction course, teach whatever we want and then hand them a USArchery certificiate. So yes, they do control the process, and IMO putting reasonable boundaries on the fees that can be charged is not overreaching their authority. It is, after all, their program and their certificate.

Again, if an instructor was interested in having a follow-on session to offer more in-depth training than what is required by the certification level, then as far as I'm concerned, they can charge whatever they think people will pay for that. 

But for one level 3 cert. to cost 3x what the next one does? That's just silly. It really removes the motivation for someone who is trying to stop the bleeding to attend the more expensive course.

John


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

TomB said:


> Respectfully disagree. I don't have to teach and I can charge what I want. They can restrict my ability to teach if I don't maintain my certification, but I am not contractually obligated to do anything for them. We have an arms length arrangement.
> 
> If USA archery goes away, I can still teach kids to shoot bows. Or not. My choice. It may be a distinction without a difference but I still feel free enought to do what I want with or without USA archery.


I think we are thinking about different things, as John points out. I only mean that you are dependent on USAA in regards to the specifics of teaching the USAA owned cert courses, not to other archery activities


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I agree with putting the lecture material on line and then just testing for it. Then spending the face-to-face time actually going hands-on with the gear.



> This, I think, is important because lectures turn out to be one of the least effective ways of teaching,


Exactly why I wonder how someone who has never shot a competitive score with a recurve can be certified as a level 4 NTS (recurve) coach.

Certifications should be based on demonstrating the material, not regurgitating it.

John


----------



## spangler (Feb 2, 2007)

limbwalker said:


> I agree with putting the lecture material on line and then just testing for it. Then spending the face-to-face time actually going hands-on with the gear.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I disagree with part in that statement. 

There are loads of coaches in all sorts of sports who are great coaches even though they weren't great players themselves. I would think it difficult to be a Level IV without having shot, but I can see someone being an effective Level IV technical coach without having been at the top of the sport. There is a big differences from coaching and doing. Not all who can do are a good coach, and you don't have to be able to do it to be a good coach.

Certifications should mean that you are qualified to teach someone else to attain a certain level. Medals mean you can attain that level yourself 

While working with a area JDT archer you know recently (helping her learn coaching) I had to work really hard to get her to remember how it felt to not be able to get into proper alignment so she could help instruct the student we were working with how to get INTO alignment one step at a time. She knew what he was doing was wrong, but couldn't get him from point A to B. That is the coaching part.

I don't like how this post turned out so I assume it is going to be ripped a new one.

I guess I can phrase it like this, I know how to do it right 10 times in a row but then I fatigue. I don't think I'll ever put up competitive recurve scores because I know the amount of time that it would take in training to be able to shoot that 144th shot as good as the first one. But because I do know WHAT to do and can do it, I can assist students who are going to put in the requisite training time to attain scores far higher than I will probably ever reach myself.

Does that make any sense?


----------



## TomB (Jan 28, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> I agree with putting the lecture material on line and then just testing for it. Then spending the face-to-face time actually going hands-on with the gear.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Or how about those that are competitive recurve archers who can't or won't help anyone else. I guess I should just give up my regional certification since I have not and cannot shoot a competitive recurve score. 

Enough if this. I got kids to help.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I agree there seems to be quite a few USAT level archers that for whatever reason have no interest in teaching. That's very unfortunate. 

Andrew, what I said was a competitive score. You interpreted that to mean a "top" shooter. Not the same. I understand your 10 shots then done analogy. Its just that there are some high level coaches that don't know what 10 shots at a major event even feel like. Then they turn around and want to charge a couple hundred/head for regurgitating material they themselves could never implement. Believe me, I've seen this with my own eyes, and many of us coaches know who these people are. Ironically, they also tend to be the same ones who charge the most for instruction.

Tom, you've helped plenty of archers over the years and undoubtedly through your son Kevin, understand recurve very well. I don't think you have any reason to get defensive. 

But your comment does lead me to another question. What about compound archers and the certification levels? Is USArchery ever going to address that? Are they somehow addressing it now with NTS? 

I would never presume to be a high level compound coach, and I make that clear whenever compound archers beyond a certain level look to me for instruction. And that makes me wonder how USArchery can qualify a coach as level 3 or 4 if they are not well trained in both diciplines. Heck, all three diciplines if you want to include barebow.

And I agree. Enough of this. I've got deer to shoot. 

John


----------



## spangler (Feb 2, 2007)

limbwalker said:


> I agree there seems to be quite a few USAT level archers that for whatever reason have no interest in teaching. That's very unfortunate.
> 
> Andrew, what I said was a competitive score. You interpreted that to mean a "top" shooter. Not the same. I understand your 10 shots then done analogy. Its just that there are some high level coaches that don't know what 10 shots at a major event even feel like. Then they turn around and want to charge a couple hundred/head for regurgitating material they themselves could never implement. Believe me, I've seen this with my own eyes, and many of us coaches know who these people are. Ironically, they also tend to be the same ones who charge the most for instruction.
> 
> ...


Good point John. I did read it that way. I guess because I always see such a HUGE cliff between the top scores and the rest of the field. I interpreted competitive to mean competitive at the top levels.

Your second point about the compound makes me wonder. I honestly shoot the compound and the recurve with *about[\b] the same draw cycle and shot and have had good success with both compound and recurve archers as students. Yes there are differences and both present unique challenges, but they are fairly minor.

I don't know, some recent thread was talking about how recurve and compound were totally different animals and I just don't see that really. There are some differences sure.

I personally shoot compound indoor and recurve outdoor with about the same form and draw cycle.*


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I'm going to try to stay on topic here. It seems a lot of folks want to pull this in a different direction and feelings are apparently getting hurt. Not my intent. 

Guess I'd love to hear what others think about whether it's okay that one training course costs several times more than another, for the same certification level, and if so, then why is it okay.

John


----------



## TomB (Jan 28, 2003)

How did the deer hunting go John? I helped five kids this afternoon shoot personal bests. No feelings hurt here friend. 



> Guess I'd love to hear what others think about whether it's okay that one training course costs several times more than another, for the same certification level, and if so, then why is it okay.


my fear is that if the costs are more uniform they will be too high for most folks. That is all I was trying to say.


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

The USAA has determined that is has the right to fix what it charges for its services, but has chosen not to dictate what resellers, the secondary market, charge. Yay USAA! 

In a discussion of more or less government/regulation, most folks here would vote less. Why should archery be excluded? Clearly that conflicts with our emotional response to children and the passion for and desire to share our sport which, unfortunately, can also separate us from the realities of it. 

This whole thread reminds me, equivalency notwithstanding, of the comment made by an oil executive in response to complaints that gas station air pumps had started charging .25 cents to fill a tire: "If you think air is free try blowing your tire up with your mouth".


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Seattlepop said:


> The USAA has determined that is has the right to fix what it charges for its services, but has chosen not to dictate what resellers, the secondary market, charge. Yay USAA!


I wouldn't call archery coaches the secondary market. USAA is more like a wholesaler with coaches being retail outlets or franchisees. Outside of the securities industry a secondary market is typically a used goods market, such as a used book or record store, where neither the original manufacturer nor the original retailer have any legal say over pricing of the used goods up for sale, or any say in whether it may be sold. USAA coaching certs do not fall in that category. They may only be offered under the authorization of USAA archery. Once issued, they cannot be resold and still be valid. I can't sell my L2 to somebody else, nor can I purchase another coach's L3. (I can, however, re-sell the printed training manual in the secondary market.)


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

Warbow said:


> I wouldn't call archery coaches the secondary market. USAA is more like a wholesaler with coaches being retail outlets or franchisees. Outside of the securities industry a secondary market is typically a used goods market, such as a used book or record store, where neither the original manufacturer nor the original retailer have any legal say over pricing of the used goods up for sale, or any say in whether it may be sold. USAA coaching certs do not fall in that category. They may only be offered under the authorization of USAA archery. Once issued, they cannot be resold and still be valid. I can't sell my L2 to somebody else, nor can I purchase another coach's L3. (I can, however, re-sell the printed training manual in the secondary market.)


"...The term "secondary market" is also used to refer to the market for any used goods or assets, or an alternative use for an existing product or asset where the customer base is the second market..." - wiki

You are so often useless. Edited to add "often".


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Seattlepop said:


> "...The term "secondary market" is also used to refer to the market for any used goods or assets, or an alternative use for an existing product or asset where the customer base is the second market..." - wiki
> 
> You are so often useless. Edited to add "often".


Your post only confirms what I said. Not sure why you'd try to cast an accurate post by me as useless.


----------



## agillator (Sep 11, 2011)

limbwalker said:


> I'm going to try to stay on topic here. It seems a lot of folks want to pull this in a different direction and feelings are apparently getting hurt. Not my intent.
> 
> Guess I'd love to hear what others think about whether it's okay that one training course costs several times more than another, for the same certification level, and if so, then why is it okay.
> 
> John


American Heart Association certification programs might be a good point of comparison. Certifications can be for Basic Life Support, Advanced Cardiac Life Support, Pediatric Advance Life Support, etc.. Different teaching agencies charge different amounts for the same cert even though the requirements to pass are identical. Some courses are considerably better than others because of instructor level of training/experience, training equipment available, quality of scenario simulations, location, etc.. It's a market like any other-- Have mediocre instructors teach a painfully uninteresting course that gives you the bare minimum of training you need to pass the test and you will have to give the course away in order to attract students. 

If AHA were to fix the price there would be no incentive for course improvement. That would be painful for the many health care professional who are required to take these courses. In the long run everyone benefits from the competition as best teaching practices spread throughout the community.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

So then we're all okay with one level 3 course costing $250, and the next one only $75? Leaving alone, of course, the knee-jerk reaction that by virtue of it costing more, somehow the first course is "worth more" ? 

Tom, perhaps you can answer this one for me:

Are coaches who receive their level 3 or 4 certifications getting ANY useful guidance on how to teach compound archery at the USAT/Jr. USAT level? Or are they filling in that blank with personal experience?


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

Warbow said:


> Your post only confirms what I said. Not sure why you'd try to cast an accurate post by me as useless.



Of course, but you knew I meant the services provided BY the coaches, not the coaches themselves - 

I should have said your posts are often irrelevant and meaningless and contribute nothing to the conversation, thus useless. Feel better?
View attachment 1495275


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> I should have said your posts are often irrelevant and meaningless and contribute nothing to the conversation. Feel better?


Kinda harsh coming from someone without a full profile, don't you think Fred?

Of course we don't exactly know who "Warbow" is either, do we? So I guess all is fair...

AT would be a much nicer place if everyone would just fill out there full profile and quit hiding, I think.


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> Kinda harsh coming from someone without a full profile, don't you think Fred?


I think everybody I deal with on a personal level knows exactly who I am, and that includes you and Warb. Like Warb, I am cautious about throwing personal information into the ether. I don't belong to Facebook or any social networks for that very reason. I use to have a more full profile, but I used to hang out in the PRM where some time ago there were some individuals who I found a little scary so deleted it. Any one who wants to contact me is welcome to PM me, as many have. 

And yes, you know me John, I'm an old cuss who speaks from the hip. I am rarely apologetic for my opinions, but acknowledge on occasion things could have been better said. However, my response to my post(s) being needlessly pissed on isn't one of them.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Fair enough.


----------



## TomB (Jan 28, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> Tom, perhaps you can answer this one for me:
> 
> Are coaches who receive their level 3 or 4 certifications getting ANY useful guidance on how to teach compound archery at the USAT/Jr. USAT level? Or are they filling in that blank with personal experience?


I think the answer to that one is yes. I helped with a level 3 in Austin a couple of months back (Mulcade was there) and I was asked to participate specifically to help add additional depth on compounds. The level 3 does discuss equipment tuning, include compounds and application of the NTS to compounds. Plus, the training and coaching philosophy portions are certainly applicable to compounds. In my courses, level 1,2, and 3 I always include discussions about compound applications of the techniques covered in the materials. (Wow, I think I just differentiated my offering to my customers so that I might be able to charge a different amount and the customer might see some value in that. :smile Anyway, I use the materials in all three courses as a basis for application of archery technique and coaching to all three disciplines I teach.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Tom, you answered yes, but then you kinda contradicted yourself by saying you were called in specifically for your expertise with compounds (had you not been called in, the participants still would have walked away with their level 3 cert.) and also suggested you "added value" by covering more in-depth compound technique. So, in a way, you actually answered my question.



> and application of the NTS to compounds


Curious who the author of that was, and whether any of our top componders are on board with it. 

John


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

TomB said:


> I think the answer to that one is yes. I helped with a level 3 in Austin a couple of months back (Mulcade was there) and I was asked to participate specifically to help add additional depth on compounds. The level 3 does discuss equipment tuning, include compounds and application of the NTS to compounds. Plus, the training and coaching philosophy portions are certainly applicable to compounds. In my courses, level 1,2, and 3 I always include discussions about compound applications of the techniques covered in the materials. (Wow, I think I just differentiated my offering to my customers so that I might be able to charge a different amount and the customer might see some value in that. :smile Anyway, I use the materials in all three courses as a basis for application of archery technique and coaching to all three disciplines I teach.


My level 3, er, Community Coach training, had no compound element. Sorry to veer slightly, but is the NAA getting on board with a compound track, or was this something you did yourself?


----------



## TomB (Jan 28, 2003)

midwayarcherywi said:


> My level 3, er, Community Coach training, had no compound element. Sorry to veer slightly, but is the NAA getting on board with a compound track, or was this something you did yourself?


I do go into a little more detail on compounds on the course I teach than the curriculum would normally call for. I did do some research today and the original community coaches course was designed 50/50 recurve and compound. However, it seems to have "evolved" to some sort of amalgam that is not equipment specific. It is more coach training specific than discipline focused. When I try and teach the basic, intermediate and community courses I add extra stuff for compound application of the same concepts if there are people in my class who work with or are likely to work with compound archers. For example fitting a compound to a kid. How to pick a release aid. How to apply the NTS concepts to compound shooting. It is not that hard to marry the concepts to both disciplines. Moreover, I also try and apply the same principles to the folks who want to apply what they learn to shooting and helping people shoot barebow. So, even though the materials don't cover how to string walk or face walk, it is not too hard to incorporate that into the discussions.

Again, I cover the essentials but also what I think my groups also want to learn based on their constituencies. If I am doing a basic course for a group of church counselors for their once a year church camp,that has one day of archery, a discussion on compound archery is not value added.

John, the community coach course I helped,with in Austin had several folks who we knew wanted to learn how to apply the NTS principles to compound archery so,that was one reason I was asked to help.

I don't know if this helps or muddies the issue. We have tons of kids in our area as you know John who want to shoot compounds. (I don't care what they shoot. It is all archery.). But, I didn't think I had the knowledge to adequately help many years ago. So, I read, asked questions, formed and tested my own ideas and melded it with what was already being taught. My conclusion was none of it was mutually exclusive. My hypothesis was the disciplines had to be pretty similar as I watched Mary Zorn Hamm, Michele Ragsdale, James Loesch, Alan Rasor and Braden Gellenthein move pretty seamlessly back and forth. So, that is what I teach to my archers and try to incorporate into the courses I teach.


----------



## dchan (Jun 29, 2004)

RE coaching certifications at the OTC,

I don't know about the current status but the 2 courses I attended, there were some scholarships/grants available for attendees given by USAA that almost completely covered the cost of the course when I took it.. The course was less than the 650-700 quoted here but again I don't know what the current status/fees are..

The other thing to consider courses at the OTC (when I attended anyway) included room and board so the main expense was travel. (although that can be expensive) 

When I run L1 and L2 courses for people that are planning to assist and help with our JOAD, the Club picks up the tab (aka me) I donate my time and the club covers the expenses. For those others that just want the paper because they need to be certified for their jobs, I charge a minimal amount. I believe that more instructors/coaches available to the public is a good thing.

For private coaching, I charge what I feel my time is worth, I'm self employed so coaching during the week means I'm not making a living at my regular job. That being said, If you come to our JOAD/club session, you pay the same rate as anyone else shooting with us. You get coaching from myself as well as several other qualified instructors. All included in the weekly shooting fee. If families can't afford the fees, they can volunteer and assist in other ways to offset the fees. Some would rather just pay the fees and a few that have gotten lots from the club/group now help with setup and tear down of the equipment necessary to run our program. Most of our income gets put back into the club or facilities. I do hope we can can start paying our instructors a little soon. They should not have to pay to volunteer. Gas is currently over 4.50/gal in SF right now!

DC


----------



## TheAncientOne (Feb 14, 2007)

Warbow said:


> ...so if I'm going to take 3 days off and spend some money on it I'm going to prefer the best instructor I can get--not for bragging rights, but because there is a chance I'll learn more from them.


Just because someone charges $250 doesn't mean he's a better instructor. Having just returned from the course I can say without a doubt that this instructor is worth what ever he wants to charge for the course. I won't mention his name here without his permission, let it sufice to say he is well known and repected in the Archery community.

So if a little math is in order: 20 students x $95 = $1,900 and it just so happens that over 20 hours the instructor is making $95 per hour. Tell me why someone charging $250 per student should be worth $250 per hour?($20 x $250= $5,000. $5,000/20 hours = $250/hour)

As far as total expenses $70 per night for lodging and about $60 for gas. Worth the $300 in my mind.

TAO


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

TheAncientOne said:


> Just because someone charges $250 doesn't mean he's a better instructor.


Absolutely--as John and I both mentioned in earlier posts. However, a better instructor may be worth more to me, so if they did charge more I'd be more likely to pay it.


----------



## TheAncientOne (Feb 14, 2007)

Warbow said:


> Absolutely--as John and I both mentioned in earlier posts. However, a better instructor may be worth more to me, so if they did charge more I'd be more likely to pay it.


Agreed!

TAO


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> I do hope we can can start paying our instructors a little soon. They should not have to pay to volunteer.


That's all I'm saying...


----------



## Scott.Barrett (Oct 26, 2008)

To the differences in prices for the same class....

I think some charge higher because they consider coaching and teaching that class as part of their "income". If teaching those classes is part of the profession, they place more monetary value on their time. Same thing I do when I help people build data warehouses....I charge higher for that time, because that is my profession, as opposed to coaching JOAD.

I'm teaching a Level 1 class in the next week or so....I am not charging anything for my time, because I don't consider it "work", just the cost of the materials from USAA....

So for those of us who don't have to make money at this, let's teach these classes for the cost of materials and flood the world with well trained archery instructors!

SB


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> So for those of us who don't have to make money at this, let's teach these classes for the cost of materials and flood the world with well trained archery instructors!


Roger that.


----------



## ZEF (Oct 6, 2012)

midwayarcherywi said:


> My level 3, er, Community Coach training, had no compound element. Sorry to veer slightly, but is the NAA getting on board with a compound track, or was this something you did yourself?


 Larry Wise seems to be working on a compound curriculum to go along side with the very heavy ended Olympic recurve style that is now being taught. However in my humble opinion the level 3 moves out of actual shooting techniques (as as it should ) and into dealing with coaching in general.
One would think that if you are going to seek out a level 3 you would be a proficient in your form as a shooter , rather it be compound ,recurve or both. You obtain a level 3 and higher to learn the ins and outs of coaching.

" I use the materials in all three courses as a basis for application of archery technique and coaching to all three disciplines I teach." 
^^^ This ^^^


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

ZEF said:


> Larry Wise seems to be working on a compound curriculum to go along side with the very heavy ended Olympic recurve style that is now being taught. However in my humble opinion the level 3 moves out of actual shooting techniques (as as it should ) and into dealing with coaching in general.
> One would think that if you are going to seek out a level 3 you would be a proficient in your form as a shooter , rather it be compound ,recurve or both. You obtain a level 3 and higher to learn the ins and outs of coaching.
> 
> " I use the materials in all three courses as a basis for application of archery technique and coaching to all three disciplines I teach."
> ^^^ This ^^^


I think your assumption is a big stretch. In fact, I don't think level 2 makes you qualified to teach any more than rudimentary form, and from what I've seen, compound is not part of that curriculum. 

The only reason I'm pushing the point is to get folks on board with integrating compound more into the training materials. 

I would go so far as to say my competence as a coach has more to do with my decades involvement in the sport as a performer and coach.

BTW, I have it on good authority that Larry Wise created a training module which was rejected a couple of years ago. Not because Larry didn't have the chops, but because it was the beginning of the KSL era and things were in flux.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

ZEF said:


> One would think that if you are going to seek out a level 3 you would be a proficient in your form as a shooter , rather it be compound ,recurve or both. You obtain a level 3 and higher to learn the ins and outs of coaching.


One might think that, but NTS is complex, and how many people really learn all they need to know about it from their two day L2 course? I'd say almost none, and there is no reason to think that people magically absorb all the nuances of NTS before considering taking an L3 course.


----------



## ZEF (Oct 6, 2012)

midwayarcherywi said:


> I think your assumption is a big stretch. In fact, I don't think level 2 makes you qualified to teach any more than rudimentary form, and from what I've seen, compound is not part of that curriculum.
> 
> The only reason I'm pushing the point is to get folks on board with integrating compound more into the training materials.
> 
> ...


Actually I think we are on the same page, "I would go so far as to say my competence as a coach has more to do with my decades involvement in the sport as a performer and coach." I will agree with this 100% and in a way what I was getting at.No it is not a pre-rec to be a good archer to finish a level 3 , however why would 
anyone without a decent amount of experience enter down that road ?
If you or any one is an achieved compound archer it should be rather easy to adapt the lessons , its not like the level 3 class is 3 days of shooting form , rather a short burst on form , and how one can learn how to observe another persons form along with other ways of coaching.
Larry just finished 2 separate classes , and unleashed 30 new level 3 coaches into the field.I can only imagine the coaching of a compound archer was fairly well covered ?


----------



## TheAncientOne (Feb 14, 2007)

ZEF said:


> Larry just finished 2 separate classes , and unleashed 30 new level 3 coaches into the field.I can only imagine the coaching of a compound archer was fairly well covered ?


Fully half of the last class was well versed in compound archery. I lean towards recurve archery but also finger shoot a compound. I just set up my compound for release shooting and worked with Larry on back-tension releases. A bit different from recurve back tension but similar enough.

TAO


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

IMO, until they get the training materials right, there should be seperate certifications for recurve and compound.

Yes, they ARE that different.

John


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

ZEF said:


> why would anyone without a decent amount of experience enter down that road ?


People take the coaching classes for a variety of reasons, including learning more about NTS. 

As a bit of a tortured analogy I'd say we don't require make up artists to be supermodels, we only require that they be able to do good make up on supermodels. Likewise, not all good coaches will be top archers. Supermodels, on the other hand, may be lousy at teaching make up for ordinary people. Can a naturally beautiful person teach ordinary people how to be beautiful? What is the first tip? First, get some really attractive parents? Sometimes natural talent at something can make it harder for some people to teach what they do, because they come by it largely naturally and don't have a good grasp of how to teach other people what they do, or why.




limbwalker said:


> IMO, until they get the training materials right, there should be seperate certifications for recurve and compound.
> 
> Yes, they ARE that different.
> 
> John


Yeah, I have zero confidence that a weekend of class that touched on compound would give me all the grounding I need to teach compound shooters.


----------



## dchan (Jun 29, 2004)

Let's see, Where's that duck and cover smilie !


I just tell the compound people "When you are ready to lose the training wheels, come see me!"









Not really.. I was a pretty decent compound shooter before I started shooting and teaching recurve. While they ARE that different, I find that there is a lot that carries over from recurve to compound. Our L3 course had a small segment on compounds however a lot of our candidates were compound shooters. Many did not have a great understanding of shooting, but were pretty decent shots. During the short equipment part of the course, I ended up helping out a lot with the instruction, just because I had a lot of experience with it. 

I agree that there needs to be more. And they need to fix the training materials. A separate or "specialty add on" for compound would make sense.

DC


----------



## ZEF (Oct 6, 2012)

Warbow said:


> Yeah, I have zero confidence that a weekend of class that touched on compound would give me all the grounding I need to teach compound shooters.


 Am I missing something ? If you are versed in recurve shooting with X amount of years in experience or vice versa why would you switch over to another discipline to coach advanced athletes ? Again I agree " they are that different " however the course provides enough basic coaching / teaching skills ,that if you enter as an accomplished compound shooter you should be able to apply to techniques to coaching compound. 
It's a how to on coaching / teaching course , more than a skills class on recurve and compound. 
No, a recurve shooter will not come out in 20 hours with the skills and form of an accomplished compound , nor should a compound shooter come out of L3 expecting to be 
a proficient recurve coach. Will you have some base knowledge about the other discipline yes.
I would not attend a L3 course as a compound knowledge based archer and expect to come out as a recurve coach. I would expect to come out with some base knowledge 
on coaching archery.
Its not apples and oranges , its green apples and red apples.

side note: Make up has nothing to do with beauty , however 9 out of 10 women would take beauty lessons from a top model before they would the models make up artist. If you would like to apply your analogy to archery ,9 out of 10 compound archers would take lessons from Reo (supermodel) , not his bow tech(make-up artist , even if is incapable of teaching. (Thats not saying he can not coach )


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

ZEF said:


> side note: Make up has nothing to do with beauty , however 9 out of 10 women would take beauty lessons from a top model before they would the models make up artist. If you would like to apply your analogy to archery ,9 out of 10 compound archers would take lessons from Reo (supermodel) , not his bow tech(make-up artist , even if is incapable of teaching. (Thats not saying he can not coach )


Teaching and coaching archery is a separate skill from performance in archery. They can be closely related, being a very good archer can help give critical insight into teacgubg archery, but being a naturally talented archer can also mean that person may have a harder time relating to the needs of archers who don't share that same talent. The links I provided earlier about how lectures are an inefficient way to teach also relate to findings that people who know a subject too well can be bad at teaching basic concepts. I ran into this myself in college where a particle physicist who worked at the Stanford Linear Accelerator taught my basic physics class. He kept digressing into calculus because he knew that the the basic algebra of Newtonian Mechanics is approximate, among other digressions of a similar nature. He was a nice guy, extremely talented at physics and math, and terrible at teaching basic physics to people without his talent. Supermodels, I think, have the same thing going on. They have good genes. They can't teach you how to do that. It is innate. (Which is why "modeling schools" are BS.) So, if you want beauty tips that work for regular people you want someone who knows how to make regular people look good--and that likely isn't a supermodel, unless she's learned that skill separately from her innate beauty.


----------



## Mulcade (Aug 31, 2007)

limbwalker said:


> IMO, until they get the training materials right, there should be seperate certifications for recurve and compound.
> 
> Yes, they ARE that different.
> 
> John


I thought the intent of this thread was to talk about the cost of the courses. :wink: Adding a second class that would be at least 75% the same as the recurve class. To me, that wouldn't solve the problem but would actually make it worse. Now I'd have to take two classes instead of just one.

For those of us that have taken these courses, I don't think a single person would suggest the content doesn't need a significant update/upgrade. Much of the material could be expanded and much of the fluff removed. They might even look into fixing some of the errors and editing mistakes. Really and truly, I believe this is the first and most important step in improving the courses.

On the other hand, had it not been for Tom and the other two coaches that taught the course I was in, I doubt very much that I would have come away with even close to the knowledge I was able to absorb that weekend. Their insights and experiences were ultimately more valuable than the content of the course materials. The materials did offer a very good outline and basis for the flow of the course.

Still, an overhaul of the material could provide the extra emphasis on the different disciplines and still maintain the single class.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Mulcade said:


> I thought the intent of this thread was to talk about the cost of the courses. :wink: Adding a second class that would be at least 75% the same as the recurve class. To me, that wouldn't solve the problem but would actually make it worse. Now I'd have to take two classes instead of just one.
> 
> For those of us that have taken these courses, I don't think a single person would suggest the content doesn't need a significant update/upgrade. Much of the material could be expanded and much of the fluff removed. They might even look into fixing some of the errors and editing mistakes. Really and truly, I believe this is the first and most important step in improving the courses.
> 
> ...


Seperate certifications, not seperate classes. Classes should be taught in modules. Because recurve technique, compound technique, barebow technique, the art of coaching, and preparing training schedules are all completely seperate lessons in my view.

At level 3, an instructor could offer seperate days or 1/2 days for certain diciplines, and the students could pick and choose which they want cert's for. Not everyone will want barebow, for example, so they get to leave early. Not everyone would even want compound, so they can leave early. Etc. 

I'm here to tell you there are great compound coaches out there who deserve level 3 or level 4 certs but know nothing, and really care nothing, about recurve. Same is true for barebow. It's a very specialized dicipline with a LOT of little secrets that few really know well.

Perhaps one way to keep the cost down would be to charge for specific modules and let the students decide. 

Just a thought.

John


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> Seperate certifications, not seperate classes. Classes should be taught in modules. Because recurve technique, compound technique, barebow technique, the art of coaching, and preparing training schedules are all completely seperate lessons in my view.


The FITA Level Two coaching manual is written up like that, as modules for different disciplines:



> Modular format
> Pending the “sensibility” of his/her club, the coach will need a coaching specialization that meet the wish of specialization of the archers he/she has to take care of. This is why the FITA Coaches Committee has presented this curriculum under various “modules” allowing an education “à la carte” of the level 2 archery coaches. For instance a coach could have a use of the module “Archers with Disabilities”, be- cause his /her club has always been open to this public due to some close relation- ship with a rehab center for instance. Another example: a coach could have no need of the Compound module, or the Field Archery Module, since in his/her country, only the Olympic form of archery is practiced.
> 
> Nevertheless the FITA Coaches Committee strongly suggests to all level 2 coaches to pass the following modules for delivering good coaching services: “AR- CHERY ANATOMY, WARM-UP and PHYSICAL CONDITIONING” – “CODE of ETHICS” – “FIGHT against DOPING” – “PHYSIOLOGICAL BASIS of AR- CHERY” – “PSYCHOLOGY” and “TRAINING PLAN”
> ...


The manual has a lot of great material in it, and it is available free on the FITA website as individual chapter PDFs or as a PDF of the entire book.

http://www.archery.org/content.asp?id=1036&me_id=836&cnt_id=7010



> 01_Code_of_Ethics.pdf
> 02_Anatomy.pdf
> 03_Barebow.pdf
> 04_Clout.pdf
> ...


Contributitng authors are from all over the world and include Don Rabska and Kim Hyung-Tag.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> Seperate certifications, not seperate classes. Classes should be taught in modules. Because recurve technique, compound technique, barebow technique, the art of coaching, and preparing training schedules are all completely seperate lessons in my view.


The FITA Level Two coaching manual is written up like that, as modules for different disciplines:



> Modular format
> Pending the “sensibility” of his/her club, the coach will need a coaching specialization that meet the wish of specialization of the archers he/she has to take care of. This is why the FITA Coaches Committee has presented this curriculum under various “modules” allowing an education “à la carte” of the level 2 archery coaches. For instance a coach could have a use of the module “Archers with Disabilities”, be- cause his /her club has always been open to this public due to some close relation- ship with a rehab center for instance. Another example: a coach could have no need of the Compound module, or the Field Archery Module, since in his/her country, only the Olympic form of archery is practiced.
> 
> Nevertheless the FITA Coaches Committee strongly suggests to all level 2 coaches to pass the following modules for delivering good coaching services: “AR- CHERY ANATOMY, WARM-UP and PHYSICAL CONDITIONING” – “CODE of ETHICS” – “FIGHT against DOPING” – “PHYSIOLOGICAL BASIS of AR- CHERY” – “PSYCHOLOGY” and “TRAINING PLAN”
> ...


The manual has a lot of great material in it, and it is available free on the FITA website as individual chapter PDFs or as a PDF of the entire book.

http://www.archery.org/content.asp?id=1036&me_id=836&cnt_id=7010



> Cover
> 
> 
> Forewords, Introduction, Contributorshttp://www.archery.org/UserFiles/Do...2/00_Forewords-Introductions-Contributors.pdf
> ...


Contributitng authors are from all over the world and include Don Rabska and Kim Hyung-Tag.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Yes, I know, I have digressed a bit here. But to finish a thought:

I find it a bit unusual and frustrating to think that someone could have a "level 4" certification but have little to no experience with elite level compound instruction, or elite level recurve, or barebow. How does a student know what they are getting? 

Like validations on a driver's license, coaching cert's should be classified for the dicipline(s) the coach is proficient in. And they should have to demonstrate their proficiency in that dicipline to earn the cert.

So if USArchery is "still working" on an equivalent compound instruction to equal the recurve instruction, what then are the coaches who were only taught "recurve" NTS going to need to do in the future, if anything? Will there be yet another course they will need to add on, or will they be grandfathered? 

How do we know who has a background in what? Take them for their word?


----------



## Mulcade (Aug 31, 2007)

limbwalker said:


> Seperate certifications, not seperate classes. Classes should be taught in modules. Because recurve technique, compound technique, barebow technique, the art of coaching, and preparing training schedules are all completely seperate lessons in my view.
> 
> At level 3, an instructor could offer seperate days or 1/2 days for certain diciplines, and the students could pick and choose which they want cert's for. Not everyone will want barebow, for example, so they get to leave early. Not everyone would even want compound, so they can leave early. Etc.
> 
> ...


I get where you're going with that thought, but let me play a little devil's advocate here. On the shallow end of the spectrum, say I was taking the class to get the barebow module, but it's the last module of the day. I'll have to wait around or come back at the end in order to get the module I want. Also say that I'm the only one who wanted that module. Is it worth my and the instructors time to even go through with it? Would it still be an enjoyable experience to take the module? Obviously, if both parties are dedicated to the task the answer to both questions is yes, but that's not always the case.

At the other end, why wouldn't a good coach not want to take all three modules? Sure, I might be a compounder and be more focused on that part of the discipline, but anything I can learn from the other two I might be able to apply to teaching a student later on down the road. I've used bit and pieces that belong to one and applied it to another to help explain and demonstrate before. I would think it would be a disservice, at least for myself, to pick up some little gems of knowledge that might come in handy some day.

John, I may not agree with all of your ideas, but I definitely like how you think! :darkbeer:

-Kevin


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Kevin, I realize that's always going to be an issue if seperate modules were offered. Not everyone is going to want all of them and some people will. To answer your question as to why someone wouldn't want all three... well, I'm thinking elite level coaching here. It's hard enough to be proficient as an elite level coach at one dicipline. I don't know very many, if ANY elite coaches in multiple diciplines. There may be a few, but how many coaches have coached an archer at the USAT level in both recurve and compound, AND have coached a barebow archer to the world team level? I doubt there are many.

A person could easily become "familiar" with all three to a certain level, but there is a huge difference between being familiar with a dicipline, and being able to coach it at an elite level. 

I feel perfectly qualified to coach recurve and barebow to the USAT/international level, but I'd never presume to be able to coach a compound archer to that level. I'm sure the same is true with many other coaches. So why not designate them as such by using a more precise certification process?

Again, a level 3 coach who knows NTS and recurve, is NOT always the same coach you'd want to send your budding Jr. USAT compound archer to. 

Why not "Level 3R, Level 3C and Level 3B" coaches? Or "Level 3 with R and C certifications" or something along those lines...

Anything that will help the customer choose wisely and clearly recognize a coach for their expertise is a good thing IMO

John


----------



## Mulcade (Aug 31, 2007)

Ok, that makes more sense when you look at it from an elite level. Of course, when you get that high not only will you have few that are capable of coaching all three, there will probably be even fewer that can teach coaches to that level. So I think it probably segregates itself. Though, I don't know how many compound elite coaches there are associated with USAA (or barebow, for that matter).

I would probably wait until level 4 before putting the discipline qualifier. In my mind, the level 3 is your base level coach and should be able to get kids started and on the path of the NTS. I would think that you'd stick with the level 3 until the fundamentals are established, which I don't think are terribly different between the disciplines, then you would send that athlete on to the level 4 coach for refinement and discipline specific coaching.

For myself, I wouldn't be comfortable as a level 3 if I had a student (and parents) that were expecting me to get them to an elite level. I don't feel I have the training and certainly not the experience to take them that far. Maybe that's by design of the certification process, maybe it's just me being fairly new to coaching, or mostly likely a combination of both. I believe I have a pretty good handle on the NTS, but I'm definitely not an expert.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> should be able to get kids started and on the path of the NTS


So we're prepared to declare NTS the method for all three diciplines then?


----------



## TheAncientOne (Feb 14, 2007)

limbwalker said:


> So we're prepared to declare NTS the method for all three diciplines then?



I haven't decided if I like the taste of this particular flavor of kool aid yet. Too many inconsistancies and contradictions in the available information. The course material in Level 3 just scratches the surface, I'll let you know after I get back from Chula Vista in December.

TAO


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Please do. Wish I could say I would be there with you!


----------



## TheAncientOne (Feb 14, 2007)

limbwalker said:


> Please do. Wish I could say I would be there with you!


Larry Wise said that he might be able to make it, it would be interesting to hear his take on it as well.

TAO


----------



## Mulcade (Aug 31, 2007)

Steve Cornell just posted a link to an upcoming book by USAA in another thread: http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=1872793. Makes me wonder what they have planned for the course materials and like I posted there, why they haven't made a huge deal of announcing their new book.

John, I've in corporated about 90% of the NTS into my compound shot cycle and it seems to work very well. The only part I have a difficult time with is getting completely into the gun barrel with my bow shoulder.


----------



## mbolduc (Jul 19, 2011)

*Archery Certification ... why be Fee based?*

With any professional organization certification and re-certification is essential in order to show that you have been active in your
professed organization and activity and that you have stayed on top of the methods being taught.

Let's take for instance an Archery Instructor who was certified 15 years ago and teaches the "old method". When his archers want to
advance and he is not in tune with just what is happening with USA Archery his archers lose out. We want our archers to succeed and
be able to compete at the level that they wish to.

In order to certify instructors who want to teach I believe it should be fee based. There are the costs of the materials used in the course that are purchased from USA Archery, the cost of equipment used to teach the course, the rental fees for a facility, the
misc. classroom items needed, snacks and drinks, possibly lunches .... etc. These are cost covered under the fees charged. Then
there is the Instructors time that they should be compensated for. The time for preparing for the course, setting up the course, running the course should all be compensated for. 

When the students become instructors they in turn will teach. When they teach they charge for their time. When they get to the
point where they want to begin to certify instructors they should be compensated for their time and efforts. This is all in the process
of being a certified instructor and certifying instructors.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Fee based, sure. But you're not being very specific. If one instructor decided to only charge for the fixed expenses and values their own time at a low amount, but the next charges a much higher rate, is the first cert. somehow less valuable? And why should one student have to pay 2-3X more for the same cert? Makes no sense to me.

Also, your assumption that if a coach learned the "old method" then somehow that knowlege is not valid over time.

Please tell me that Darrell Pace is no longer qualified to teach Olympic archery. 

Archery is a sport that's been around for thousands of years. The basic principles of shooting well have not changed, nor will they change so long as God keeps putting us together the same way we've been for millenia. Same is true with coaching archers.

I have a hard time accepting that an experienced coach needs to re-certify just because someone came along and changed the language, even though the steps are still the same. Smells like a ponzi scheme to me.

Now, I agree that if someone has not been actively coaching or shooting for years, their skills can and will diminish. So re-certification should show that a coach who has attained a certain level of proficiency, has continued to be active at that level.

John


----------



## TheAncientOne (Feb 14, 2007)

limbwalker said:


> Also, your assumption that if a coach learned the "old method" then somehow that knowlege is not valid over time.
> 
> John


Every Country has their own flavor of archery, our systen isn't necessarily better just because it's ours or it's new. Remember Italy won the team Gold.

TAO


----------



## Mulcade (Aug 31, 2007)

For USAA, re-certification occurs every three years via a testament that the certified individual is actively engaged in coaching at least someone during the previous three year period. Re-certification costs $30, USAA membership (for lvl 2 and higher), and a new background check (also for lvl 2 and higher). The only time, to my knowledge at least, anyone has been required to retake the course is when they decided to make NTS the official method. This was to make sure everyone was exposed to the method with the goal of getting all the certified instructors/coaches teaching the same method so students who change coaches don't have to start from square one with the new coach.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> The only time, to my knowledge at least, anyone has been required to retake the course is when they decided to make NTS the official method.


You sure about that? 



> Pre-2009 LEVEL 3 and LEVEL 4
> 
> *Level 3 and 4 Coaches without the NTS designation may not become certified as Coach Trainers, nor can they increase their level of certification, without completing a new Level 3-NTS or Level 4-NTS Coach Course or by completing an NTS module. They also are not eligible for USA Archery camp or team assignments.


This tells me that a former level 3 or 4 coach can recertify without the NTS designation if they wish.

John


----------



## Mulcade (Aug 31, 2007)

I think that may have changed from the earlier days because of some significant backlash from some of the existing coaches. 

Then again, I could be just plain wrong. Doesn't happen often, but according to my wife it does occur. :wink:


----------

