The Sport Plan for New Brunswick was developed in 2008 in collaboration of a Steering Committee, co-chaired by the Department of Wellness, Culture and Sport and Sport New Brunswick. In addition the committee held representatives of the Canadian Sport Center Atlantic, Center for Coaching Education and Recreation New Brunswick. Continue reading
KIN 6300 Seminars: The Relative Age Effect
Our age is one of the few defining factors today’s society uses to interpret our status and measure our future potential. Typically this is done by using age brackets or by looking at annual age groups. We (I say this meaning Generation Y) have mostly grown up in a society where status, education, friendships and sport are divided by age, where society tries to collectively group together youth that are the same ages for developmental purposes.
But what if I told you, that this creates advantages and disadvantages for these youth? What if I told you that grouping kids within the same annual age, still doesn’t even the playing field in development.
You might ask:
Within a given year there are 12 months, in which a kid born in January has 11 months of development and maturity under them then a kid who was born in December. And the most miraculous part is they are the same annual age.
Furthermore, our current social, education and sport systems have had to deal with the problem of how to group children for equal and safe competition.
This past week our graduate class took a look at Sport, and more notably sport policy in Canada. One of the root articles that we looked at was an evaluation paper on Sport Canada’s Sport Funding and Accountability Framework (SFAF). I know it has the most interest name possible… In actuality though this article demonstrates the direction Sport Canada had for their funding of sports in the years of 1995- 2004, and how the SFAF was the backbone for the creation of what we know today as the Canadian Sport Policy.
The Sport Funding and Accountability Framework
The Sport Funding and Accountability Framework (SFAF) was used by Sport Canada from 1995 to 2004 to not only identify which National Sport Organization (NSO’s) were eligible but the areas, level and condition funding was going to be received. The SFAF consisted of a pilot year which was in 1995 as well as three additional phases, SFAF I (1996- 2000), SFAF II (2001 – 2004) and SFAF III (2005 -2010). “Initially SFAF criteria were heavily weighted towards elite success with less emphasis given to broader social objectives” (Havaris & Danylchuk, 2010, p. 32), however, as SFAF II began there was recognition of a shift in federal policy direction. The shift consisted of moving towards a broader conception of sport objectives and moving away from high performance sport.
Just to get you thinking what do you think has brought about this shift of direction from high performance to broader sport objectives?
Havaris and Danylchuk’s (2010) article conducted an evaluation of Sport Canada’s SFAF model, the purpose of the article was to assess the effectiveness of Sport Canada’s SFAF from its inception to its end within four NSO’s. The effectiveness of the SFAF was evaluated within the four NSO’s funding component by examining its delivery at the national level, accountability and sport objectives that are now used in the Canadian Sport Policy.
Four major themes were developed out of the findings from the interviews and document analysis. These themes suggest preliminary implication for the way accountability is implemented and monitored in Canadian Sport.