Note:This is published for information only (webmaster) 

CAMPAIGN’S REPLY TO SPORT ENGLAND’S REPORT OF ACTIONS

MAY 10 2011

To:

Scott Pugh - Sport England Solicitor and NGB Complaints Manager
Richard Beer - Sport England Judo Relationship Manager
Emyr Roberts - Sport England Strategic Lead Coaching and Talent Development

We are disappointed by the tone and content of your email of May 6 2011.

You have been somewhat elusive in dealing with the issues you had agreed to action, as minuted from our meeting of January 28 2011. You have given extensive attention to matters that needed simple clarification and either evaded or dismissed other issues of concern, namely that all judo participants, in or out of the NGB should have equal right of access, and on equal terms, to the UK Coaching Certificate, and should not be discriminated against by being required to undergo individual competence testing before being entitled to apply to take part in a judo UKCC course.

The judo UKCC is a national award and the present criteria for entry of access, and mapping over of qualifications, for those outside the NGB for judo, is discriminatory.

For some five years Sport England had promised to meet with the Campaign. You had resisted the idea of the meeting until I engaged intervention from the Parliamentary Ombudsman.

Then, on accepting a meeting would be held, you vehemently objected to the taking of minutes.

When we met, you agreed with us, that the meeting was to be the first in a process to find resolve.

Subsequently it became clear that none of you were adequately versed on the issues for discussion

Richard Beer, Sport England’s Judo Relationship Manager, was unable to answer fundamental questions arising at the meeting.

We find it incredulous that after the meeting you wrote to me asking what the National Source Group (NSG) was.

It is inexcusable that your Richard Beer, as Judo Relationship Manger, did not know of the NSG.

Furthermore the documentation/information that I provided you all with, included detail of the NSG and its role. Did no one read this?

At the meeting, it was agreed, and minuted, that Sport England would take issues we raised to the BJA, noted as actions, and forward their responses in due course.

Now, having forwarded your reply, you invite me to raise any points of clarification arising from your response.

I make the following comments to each of the actions you list:-

 

 

1.Confirmation that Sport England considers Judo a martial art?

At our meeting, and in the recorded minutes, along with documentation/information given to you, the reason for this question was given. It was clearly explained funding had nothing to do with our raising this matter. The clearly stated reason was one of recognition. The fact that neither Sport England or the BJA had until now, (when you say you do) acknowledged judo as a martial art, led to those not in the BJA, who encompassed judo as a martial art, being tarred as not doing ‘proper’ judo. This attitude fuelled further a BJA elitist approach and a ‘them and us’ atmosphere.

Why do you ignore this and go to lengths to write about funding?


2. Clarification of whether the £200 fee proposed for pre assessment of non-BJA members/affiliates applies per head or, when more than one is assessed at the same time, per group?

Although this was not an issue that detailed in the minutes for action, thank you for your looking into this matter.

Firstly the £200 is not a ‘proposed’ fee. It is the fee. Despite sportscoach UK ’s Coaching Standards Group (NSG) saying that this sum was “unreasonably high”, (as in the documentation/information), it remains at £200..

You say the BJA has said, “the fee would not be £200 each” (which it would be if only one person was being assessed). The fee would be shared among the participating independents. A maximum number of independents (around four)”.

Around four? What does that mean? This is very different from current BJA literature which states, “The cost of the Non-NGB Technical Assessment to the candidate is £200”. The BJA then say they, “reserve the right not to proceed with any proposed course in the event that less than eight applicants confirm their places by submitting the appropriate application form and fee”.

There two statements contradict each other. Which is correct? Whichever is the case, this is another example of tinkering and fudging. However, regardless of any cost, non-BJA people are not prepared to be competence tested in this manner, in order to have their grade acknowledged to apply to access the judo UKCC.


3. Might the BJA be prepared to recognise grades from other non affiliated judo organisations on the basis of an assessment of their syllabi?

This is a vital issue. It is at the crux of the difficulties arising, of which Sport Engand say, “the current situation Is to the detriment to judo”.

We proposed a sensible, realistic and reasonable approach to a way forward to deal this issue. You make no reference to the BJA’s response to this specific proposal. Why? Was this proposal dismissed at hand by the BJA? What did the BJA say? You don’t say.

Instead you write of a new BJA scheme, ‘Approved Provider’. This scheme has nothing to do with ensuring there is grade recognition and access for all to the UKCC, on equal terms, as those in the BJA.

Richard Beer already attempted to divert the issue of the present discriminatory measures imposed on non-BJA people and equality to access the UKCC, at our meeting, by producing scant detail of the BJA’s new ‘Approved Provider’ scheme. This showed that fundamentally the scheme is about judo in schools and education sector. (Information is on the BJA website)

Richard Beer’s answer to the difficulties, as it appears yours is too, was to suggest, as recorded in the minutes, that we wait to see how this new Approved Provider scheme worked out before dealing with the UKCC.

When asked what were the benefits of the ‘Approved Provider’ scheme, the minutes show Richard Beer said that if judo participation increased across the UK , the BJA could benefit from further funding.

The Campaign made clear it expected Sport England deal with the specific issues we raised on competence testing, access to UKCC, and recognition of grades, and take our proposals to the BJA as agreed earlier in the meeting

What did the BJA say to our proposal as headed above (3)?.


4. Further information on the ‘Approved Provider’ scheme and the six participants.

You say we should talk to the BJA for further information.

As stated above we do not see that this scheme deals with the specific issue the Campaign raises of recognition of grade for all those wishing to apply to access the judo UKCC award.

As recorded in the minutes we question the value of coming together with the BJA if they were to simply dismiss our proposals at hand.

It is therefore imperative that we know why you have not made any reference of specific feedback, from the BJA, to our specific proposals of grade recognition and equal access to the UKCC. We need to know what the BJA have to say, in order to make a reasoned decision where we go from here.


5. Would the BJA be prepared to recognise existing independent coach awards as equal to old BJA Coach awards to enable assimilation?

You say, “It is less likely that automatic recognition would apply for coaching qualifications”. This doesn’t sound hopeful of a way forward does it? Is this an assertion by Sport England, or is this the voice of the BJA?


6. Who owns the judo UKCC?

You say it is ‘technically’ the awarding body which owns the qualification. In the case of judo the awarding body is 1st4Sport. Do you agree it can therefore be said that 1st4Sport owns the judo UKCC?

The above concludes my comments, and questions, to the six points in your reply. I await your clarification and answers to the matters I raise therein.


Summary

Having resisted discussion with the Campaign, prior to my calling on the Parliamentary Ombudsman to intervene, you now, having met with the Campaign, conclude in your email of May 6 2011, that you “consider this matter at an end”.

We find this statement concerning. It highlights, again, an underlying indifference by Sport England towards the Campaigns’ concerns, and the vast population of judo practitioners who make up the majority judo in the UK . It also gives further grounds to say that Sport England appears to give tacit approval to whatever the BJA says or does. The finality of your closing words, “We are considering this matter at an end”, reneges not only on what you said you would do, but on what we understood to be Sport England’s commitment to find resolve to a situation that your chief executive says is, “to the detriment of the sport”.

As things stand non-BJA people continue to face discrimination when wishing to apply to access the national UKCC judo award or have their coaching/teaching qualifications mapped over to the judo UKCC on equal terms as those in the BJA enjoy. This discrimination is not acceptable.

Yours sincerely,


John Goldman
Leader Save Independent Judo