Background: A number of countries have heavily invested in the provision of large scale coach education programmes, often framed by elaborate qualification frameworks. Despite this investment, scant research has been conducted on coach education programmes. Given the limited amount of literature on coach education, and the relatively recent emergence of literature that foregrounds the educational aspect of the coaching process, it is probably not surprising that the concept of curriculum has received scant attention despite the increasing interest in pedagogy amongst members of the sport coaching community. Setting: In the middle of 2000, a Ministerial Taskforce on Sport, Fitness and Leisure was established to examine the structure of New Zealand sport. In 2001, one of the "actions" stemming from the Ministerial Taskforce was the restructuring of the sport, leisure and fitness sectors, resulting in the establishment of Sport and Recreation New Zealand (SPARC). One mandate given to SPARC was to review and upgrade coaching practice and resourcing. Subsequently, SPARC published two policy documents: "The New Zealand Coaching Strategy" and the "Coach Development Framework" (CDF). Purpose: The purpose of the article is two-fold; first to report on an analysis of the language used in "The New Zealand Coaching Strategy" and the "Coach Development Framework" and second, to explain why particular language was used. Methods and analysis: The first method was a text analysis, which was used to analyse "The New Zealand Coaching Strategy" and the "Coach Development Framework". The second method was interviewing, which was conducted with the members of the working party involved in designing the CDF to gain insight into why particular language was used. Findings: We provide examples that demonstrate how "The New Zealand Coaching Strategy" and the "Coach Development Framework" reflect, or not, a paradigmatic shift in the conceptualisation of educating coaches in the New Zealand context. The examples specifically focus on a shift from coach education to coach development, from generic courses for all coaches to coaching communities, and from formalised accreditation to the provision of learning opportunities and experiences. Conclusion: Drawing on empirical examples from the above documents, and the interview texts from the members of the working party, we contend there has been a paradigm shift in the coach education sector in New Zealand because there has been a move (at least at policy level) from an accredited and certified, standardised programme, to an ongoing professional development process informed by an applied athlete-centred philosophy. (Contains 1 figure and 3 notes.)