[Gillian Clarke is president of the Toronto Inline Skating Club. Her text was written as a letter to the IISA's coordinator of the certification program, and first appeared on the Toronto Inline website here. Copied with permission.] I attended the ICP Level 1 course in Ottawa, Ontario on May 16th-18th. It was a valuable experience in some ways, but disappointing in others. After some thought, I have decided to pass on my reactions. My intention is to be constructive, as I do believe that the ICP is addressing a real need, but I think they could do it better. My first concern is the failure rate in this class. We had limited time to compare notes but I know that at least 5 people did not pass out of a class of 17 (for the record, I passed). This in itself is not a bad thing: standards are important, though this is a little tougher than I understand Level 1 to be in other sports, especially considering that all participants were experienced and competent skaters by general standards, and many (including some who failed) had coaching experience in other sports. My problem is that those who failed were quite obviously taken by surprise. I think most students misunderstood the expectations of the examiners. We were taught that the first element of the lesson plan is "select a goal". I, and others, assumed the goal was to bring all the students to the level required to pass the course, especially after pre-class talk about the importance of bringing qualified people into the sport. However if that was the goal of the examiners they were not "teaching to it". Specifically it was not clear until late in the weekend what was actually required to pass the course -- and there was no warning given to those in danger of failing. On the contrary, the feedback my group received was of the positive and upbeat type: "look how much better you are doing today" etc. Not "...but you are still going to fail unless you do X." Perhaps the problem was an essential confusion between the teaching and evaluation portions of the weekend. In retrospect I see that some of the "strangeness" I felt was due to the examiners juggling the two roles -- being an encouraging teacher on the one hand, and a tough, secretive evaluator on the other. I say secretive because when our score sheets were handed out some of us found negative comments that came as a complete surprise. Then the sheets were taken away. How does this help people to improve, or benefit the sport? My second concern is about the course manual, which I hate. It suffers from the same confusion of purpose as the weekend did. The typography and layout are hip, busy and jazzy, and suggest it is a promotional piece for those with short attention spans. There is no indication that this is material that needs to be memorized to pass a test. A simple numbered list of the important learning points would have made it 100% easier to use. As it is, I found the text very hard to read for meaning. It is a combination of the crushingly obvious, e.g. "Stopping is the process by which a skater terminates movement" (duh) and the opaque or meaningless "A teaching style is composed of all the decisions made during the teaching process that induce a particular style of learning." What is a student to take away from that? A very simple concept is made obscure with pretentious language. This sort of prose signals to me that the writer is insecure about the value of the material and is trying to make it appear more serious and weighty. Not necessary! Please keep it simple and clear! It was also clear that students lost points, or couldn't understand test questions, without using the proper ICP-specific terminology. In some cases this may have made the difference between a pass and a fail. To me this is an indication of an unhealthy focus on "going by the book", while missing the real purpose of creating competent instructors. What real purpose does it serve an instructor to know that edging is defined as a Primary Skill and stroking as a Functional Skill? My third concern is about the skills taught. I like the teaching methods used, the progressions and the concept of building up complex moves from simpler ones. This was for me the most valuable part of the course. But the students who were not from a roller rink or figure skating background had some issues with the actual skills being taught. The spin stop strikes some of us as dangerous in the real world, and while I'm sure it has a use in some situations, there was no discussion about when it would be a safe and appropriate way to stop. I'm still not sure what the purpose of a powerslide is, and would not want to teach it to an average outdoor skater. The inline skating world is changing, and the trend is toward outdoor fitness skating. The ICP manual is dated 1995. Have you reviewed the relevance of the skills taught under the ICP in the last eight years? In summary, I did learn a lot from the weekend and do not wish to leave the impression that I found nothing positive. Our instructor, Kim Murray, was an excellent teacher, and I am aiming no criticism at her. However for the reasons above I will not be recommending the ICP program to any more of our club skaters, unless they wish to teach commercially and need the insurance coverage. I am unhappy that this is so, because in many sports a coaching certification is a great way for athletes to develop their understanding of their sport, whether or not they intend to teach. With relatively few changes the ICP could offer this. Gillian Clarke