I heard somewhere that the average player is rated 1600. I don't know if that's true or not. But I also hear that there are coaches who are rated well below that figure. It makes you wonder what their students are learning. Seems almost like the blind leading the blind. Could these below average coaches tell the difference between a King's Indian Defence and, say, the Pirc? And don't just say it's the c4-pawn!
For me, I am yet to be convinced that under 2000-rated players have any business coaching. Some folks will say communications skills are important. But if you don't know what you're talking about, then you have nothing to communicate. Have you?
Over two years ago, Man of Controversy, Matt Sweeney, proposed a National Chess Coaching Accreditation Scheme. I wonder what's happening with that.