FOCUS - Talent pathway

[greywolf]

Just re-read, again, the "Talent Pathway" article on p22 of the most recent FOCUS - and 3rd time round it's still mostly gobbledegook: is it a joke? are there bits missing? has it been randomly edited - every 3rd word removed perhaps? or maybe the original text has been run through babelfish.com a couple of times...
what sort of language is "the outcome to the queries will be:"?
why don't the outcomes either answer the queries or relate to the diagram?
and presumably if you're over 35 you can just s*d off??
for my sins, i have to spend far too much of my time interpreting EU, government and lottery policy papers and funding application guidance, so i'm not unused to this sort of jobbie, it's just a shame that it appears to have colonised BOF so thoroughly
the article does state that there is a need for greater clarity ... hope someone's working on that.....

[Gnitworp]

How about this?

Replace:

The outcome to the queries will be:
Outcome 1........
Diagram 1........
Outcome 2........

with:

People (parents/participants) asking these questions will be:

1) referred to the Talent Pathway Diagram (as illustrated*) that will provide a clear statement of which events they must attend to optimise their chances of selection for squads, tours or national teams.

2) referred to a list of priority events compiled for each 'stage' in the 'Pathway', the scheduling of which will be coordinated with the National Fixtures List with certain of these events nominated as selection events with the following aims:

Phase 1 etc, etc, etc.

*including (presumably!) a 'Pathway' for 35+ athletes

[greywolf]

How about this?

Better! Now you just need to redraw the "talent pathway diagram" so that it does "provide a clear statement of which events they must attend"

and maybe do something about: "What is meant by 'Talent Pathway? - It is the pathway that talented athletes will step onto and follow in order to gain international status"

[mike g]

Is the Talent Pathway what Graeme was describing here?

From my (middle) start it was already pretty much a scalextric course, following the groove round. No point in mapreading ahead because the trodden path was going to be fastest when you got there.

[Mrs H]

I think it's a bit OTT to

eliminate

those who don't make selection

do they really think "non-elite cleansing" is the way to get "more people" into "more places"?

[geomorph]

I think it's a bit OTT to

eliminate

those who don't make selection

do they really think "non-elite cleansing" is the way to get "more people" into "more places"?

Couldn't agree more.
But the key here may be bifurcation - ie stream off the true elite-in-waiting but continue the promotion of personal talent levels through another stream.

There is a tremendous need to provide talent pathways for skills progression in all manner of life activities, but too many are purely focussed on the 'elite' path because they are business driven, and BO(F) is part business part membership umbrella, and has to demonstrate to the sponsors that it has a rigorous process to create the elite.

One thing I would like to see more of, as part of talent promotion and extension, is extended school holiday junior camps (part O part other), and not necessarily in the best O terrain but in regional bases. Yes, they would have to be fully commercial, and they MUST be open to all-comers. It would severely tax volunteer(s) but if done as our tennis club does, using professional coaching, can be a great source of income (always over-subscribed, the parents can't wait to part with their cash!). We raise 1/3rd of club income that way. Admittedly the running costs will be higher. Mix in with another outdoor sport to share the burden, and thus cross-fertilise, benefiting all.

[SeanC]

Interesting point. But there's already lots of places selling "adventure" breaks for kids in the summer, some of which include orienteering (eg http://www.blackmountain.co.uk/land/orienteering.htm - found at random via google). I suspect it would be easier to focus our efforts on ensuring that the quality of orienteering offered in these places is appropriate, that the centres tell the kids about local events in their area for when they return home and that more of them offer orienteering. I wonder how well us (BOF and local clubs) support these places? Since they are profit making, I imagine that the centres can at least help to pay for support. Is this another area where a better funded BOF development team with a wider remit could help develop our sport?

[geomorph]

Interesting point. But there's already lots of places selling "adventure" breaks for kids in the summer.

Agreed, but not very local; our tennis catchment is 10 miles, no need for residential, and for many no more than the daily school run, so no increased - just extended - burden for the ferrying parent/carer.

Perhaps teaming up with the local country park/FC etc and using their classroom facilities. A 5-day programme, orienteering and fitness with some team sports like volleyball/basketball for good socialisng. And with the increasing exposure of Sprint in towns and campuses, we could try to exploit these areas for these camps.

I suspect it would be easier to focus our efforts on ensuring that the quality of orienteering offered in these places is appropriate,.... Is this another area where a better funded BOF development team with a wider remit could help develop our sport?

The kids have been on a couple of these and thought that the orienteering was a bit dumbed down (and that's at orange standard), so you are right Sean to suggest that effort needs to be made to ensure that the standards are correct. (however one of the local secondary schools uses one of the Black Mountain orgs for a week long year 7 geography trip, and it is consistently voted the best activity of the week.

Looks like a good area for tactical partnerships, where club expertise can be used to build on the commerical offer, and the club can then market events and junior socials onward.

[Spookster]

i have to spend far too much of my time interpreting EU, government and lottery policy papers and funding application guidance, so i'm not unused to this sort of jobbie, it's just a shame that it appears to have colonised BOF so thoroughly
the article does state that there is a need for greater clarity ... hope someone's working on that.....

The Talent Pathway will be one part of the Orienteering Whole Sport Plan that will be submitted to Sport England later this year. Talent development is also one of a series of targets that are part of the new Sport England strategy for 2008-2011 announced recently. Our Whole Sport Plan, and the Talent Pathway, will need to use "their language", to stand the best chance of gaining maximum funding for British Orienteering.

World Leading Ambition of Sport England

I don't have FOCUS in front of me, but I guess the Talent Pathway article in there was based on an early draft. No doubt it will be refined and improved upon. Suggestions welcome!

[Kitch]

Our Whole Sport Plan, and the Talent Pathway, will need to use "their language", to stand the best chance of gaining maximum funding for British Orienteering.

what appologist rubbish!
If you write stuff in jargon, if you can't say it in plain language then to my mind it displays a lack of basic understanding of what you are talking about. So how do you expect to achieve what is being set out ?
If you write stuff in jargon a lay audience (British Orienteering Members) will not understand what you are talking about - result; no buy in, no engagement - you fail.
If Sport England are simply playing buzzword bingo when assessing a plan then we are doomed.

If, on the other hand, you write in plain language then
everyone understands,
everyone can buy in and engage,
everyone breathes a great big sigh of relief that here we have a bunch of people with the good common sense to state clearly and simply a well though out, coherent plan.

[Scott]

Our Whole Sport Plan, and the Talent Pathway, will need to use "their language", to stand the best chance of gaining maximum funding for British Orienteering.

Undoubtedly true, but the piece in question appeared as an article in Focus which (in Sport England language) exists to facilitate communication between British Orienteering and its members. If we're genuinely seeking to engage the membership in the formulation of the Talent Pathway - and the WSP in general - then a well-written, Plain English summary in Focus (with the "official" document available online for those of us who like such things) is more likely to succeed than a reproduction of the bureaucratese version in all its glory.

[Mrs H]

Well done both - I was thinking much the same myself - but my main concern is (and always has been) who exactly do BOF Central perceive themselves to be serving? Sadly this latest example only serves to convince me even further that it certainly isn't it's members. (and they don't even seem to be bothering to try and disguise that fact now )

[geomorph]

Our Whole Sport Plan, and the Talent Pathway, will need to use "their language", to stand the best chance of gaining maximum funding for British Orienteering.

Undoubtedly true, but the piece in question appeared as an article in Focus which (in Sport England language) exists to facilitate communication between British Orienteering and its members. If we're genuinely seeking to engage the membership in the formulation of the Talent Pathway - and the WSP in general - then a well-written, Plain English summary in Focus (with the "official" document available online for those of us who like such things) is more likely to succeed than a reproduction of the bureaucratese version in all its glory.

Basically, like so much of interaction with government you have to do it twice. Once for them to understand, and once for those who really pay the bills.

This is the big downside of needing begging bowls.

But it is a worthwhile investment; always do the translation in parallel, not as a separate or belated exercise, and if it holds up to close scrutiny in both languages you are on to a winner - the whole is much stronger than the sum of the parts. It just takes a little longer to get there, but then you don't spend a lot of time placating one party or another when its too late.

[Kitch]

Basically, like so much of interaction with government you have to do it twice. Once for them to understand, and once for those who really pay the bills.

But it is a worthwhile investment.

geomorph, time for an escape plan.
any sane mind would see that it is an utter waste of money to have to do this stuff twice.

The fundamental problem with government jargon - if you accept that jargon demonstrates a lack of understanding - is that it means those in charge don't understand what they are doing (so they hide behind jargon).

anyone want to comment on that ?

also, they don't understand what you are doing .... I'm not usre which is worse

[Oldman]

... but my main concern is (and always has been) who exactly do BOF Central perceive themselves to be serving? Sadly this latest example only serves to convince me even further that it certainly isn't it's members. (and they don't even seem to be bothering to try and disguise that fact now )

I think that's quite harsh, and rather unfair on the Board, especially as the Board is now directly elected by the members. They are after all volunteers just like you, Mrs H! and I don't think even you are suggesting they're lining their own pockets!

The latest Board summary also seems to make clear they also accept that communication with members needs to be improved.

Extract
"The importance of communicating the plan effectively to others was
agreed, with relevant emphases for individual members, clubs and Associations"

The meeting was only a week ago, so presumably they are still following up on that?