THE EVOLUTION OF THE OF COACH-EDUCATORS’ PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE UK: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

Abstract

The article presents a comparative analysis of the evolution of the British system of professional development for coach-educators during 2001–2025. The activities of key organizations – UK Coaching (formerly National Coaching Foundation) and CIMSPA (Chartered Institute for the Management of Sport and Physical Activity) are characterized. The main regulatory documents governing coaching education are analyzed. It is established that the British model represents a completed cycle of systemic transformation spanning over two decades.

The period of 2001–2005 included strategic planning through UK Vision for Coaching document, which defined ambitious goal of creating world leading coaching system with three-tier implementation structure and extensive stakeholder engagement through UK Coaching Summits. It is emphasized that with sports sector development, the British system adequately responded to challenges through UK Coaching Certificate implementation as endorsement scheme for 31 sports. The period of 2011–2020 witnessed professionalization through CIMSPA formation with chartered status and professional standards development. Examining current development stage, the period of 2020–2025 is characterized by integration through historic registers merger covering 600,000 professional roles and Professional Status launch with postnominals.

Key characteristics of British model include dual track system with parallel university and federation pathways, evidence-based reform approach, gradual professionalization, reflective practice integration, and informal learning value recognition. For Ukraine, British experience adaptation through hybrid training model creation, Ukrainian Coaching Institute establishment, five-level National Qualifications Framework, and recommendations pilot testing is proposed. The necessity of realistic 15-20 years timeline with mandatory evidence-based monitoring and all stakeholders’ involvement while avoiding British mistakes in gender equity and neglect of reflective practice is emphasized.