1. Mutual Recognition of Qualifications – Cross Borders

2. The Coach
Throughout our work we’re trying to use the needs of the coach as the focal point.
If we were getting stuck we always tried to reference the coaches needs.

3. There are two programme operating in Ireland, the UK Coaching Certificate (UKCC) and the Coach Development Programme for Ireland (CDPI). These programmes helped the development and review of governing bodies coach education programmes, and ultimately an endorsement.
Three of the partnership agencies involved agreed to explore how we could work together more effectively for the good of the coach, the participants, and the deployers.
Please note, when I refer to deployers this could be paid employment, or it could be voluntary (in a club for example)
Also the governing bodies were advised of the work going on

4. Project Purpose
To support an agreed approach to the deployment of fit for purpose coaches
We set out to understand the differences between the programmes

5. Process Programme Level Comparison Action Development
Production of policy documentation
Programme Level Comparison – We worked out the differences of the programmes. For example the UKCC had a focus on quality assurance (alignment with NQF), and was aligned to job role; whilst the CDPI had a stronger focus on tutor training, and was aligned more closely to the participant’s stage in the pathway. Neither of these were wrong! It was the philosophical approach of the country, and over time we have learnt from each other of the benefits of the different approaches. We will come back to this need to retain national identity in a moment
Action Development – At this point we were aware we needed to move to the governing body qualification level. Based on the above we produced some fairly basic documentation which looked at similarities and gaps of the coach education programmes as delivered in the UK and in Ireland. This includes a look what was supposed to be delivered (desk-based on tutor notes), and what is delivered (observed programme). This gives an all round overview of the gaps and similarities. It also allows a sharing of good practice across countries at a governing body level. We used a reviewer agreed by all parties.
Production of policy documentation – It was important to us that there was come policy-level agreements which came out of this. We now have a memorandum of understanding across the key partners to work together, and respect each other’s programmes. A very important part of this is the need to respect the sovereignty of the governing body and the member state’s jurisdiction. The programme has allowed for a celebration of national identify whilst taking advantage of the similarities available

6. Benefits Clarity – for a whole host of parties
Bridging programmes – There have note been any formalised yet, but the clarity provides a good level of direction
Has worked as meaningful development exercise and tool for both countries
As mentioned at the beginning the needs of the coach, and making them fit for purpose

7. Any Questions?