From the Peninsula Athletic Leagues (PAL) constitution: “The objective of the PAL shall be to promote interscholastic activities in a way consistent with sound principles of education, to promote equal opportunities for all of the youth regardless of race, religion, gender, or national origin and to cultivate cordial and friendly relationships among schools through good standards of sportsmanship.”
I recently wrote an article on the challenges that student athletes face during the season, and in my conversations, discovered that some of the largest issues are a result of poor coaching by non-certificated outside hires. Recent updates regarding a lawsuit against a former girls’ volleyball coach have increased the urgency of this message. In order to dive deeper, I began talking with more students about their experiences in sports and how those issues were (or weren’t) resolved. Through my investigation using school-wide surveys, individual conversations, interviews and reviewing the PAL’s rules, I have come to the conclusion that some changes need to be made in order to ensure that students are able to follow the California Interscholastic Federation’s (CIF) six core principles of “trustworthiness, respect, responsibility, fairness, caring and good citizenship.”
Note: The editorial board and I have chosen to leave every student included in this article anonymous in order to protect their privacy.
Through a survey of 90 Woodside students, I discovered that roughly 20% of students reported that they had a bad experience with the leadership of one or more athletics teams that affected their time on that team. There were not enough responses to be a truly accurate sample size of the student body; however, there were significant trends that caused concern and led me to believe that there was a need for deeper investigation. While I knew that there had to be an underlying problem leading to this percentage, I wasn’t sure how to pinpoint it. So I started where it should always begin: talking to those affected.
The first student I talked with described their experience over the course of a season that ultimately led to them quitting the team.
“[The sport] definitely made me way more anxious…There had been points during conditioning … [where] I had passed out just due to anxiety,” Student One said. “I was just really nervous with [the coaches].”
During their time on the team, this student reported that they experienced frequent cussing and harsh language directed not only at them, but at other teammates as well. While there isn’t much of an explanation needed for why coaches should avoid swearing at students, it directly violates the second core principle as named by the CIF: “don’t engage in disrespectful conduct of any sort including profanity, obscene gestures, and offensive remarks of a sexual or racial nature, trash-talking, taunting, boastful celebrations, or other actions that demean individuals or the sport.” Should our coaches not lead by example?
When asked about what might lead to the continuation of these issues, this student explained that while coaches may be great in their first few seasons, there aren’t many reevaluations to make sure that they’re still fit for the role.
“I think there should be more check-ins to see … how well they’ve been throughout,” Student Two said. “I feel like there should be, every three years, a check-in to see how well these coaches are doing.”
This is not the only student who faced challenges with the leadership of their athletic team and felt that there needed to be a change. Another student walked me through their experience from previous years.
“I had a coach who basically would make comments on women’s bodies, like, ‘If you want to be better at the sport, you have to be skinnier,’ things like that,” Student Two said. “And all of this was told to [the] administration, and it was complained about for multiple years.”
The aforementioned coach is no longer employed by the school.
Once again, the reason why this method of coaching is deplorable is fairly black and white. However, to put it truly on paper, this coach violated the ninth principle of the CIF: “[Individuals involved with the CIF] must assure that education and character development responsibilities are not compromised to achieve sports performance goals and that the academic, social, emotional, physical and ethical well-being of student-athletes is always placed above desires and pressured to win.”
As I interviewed more students, a clear pattern began to emerge. When asked about what could be done differently, like the first student I talked to, most suggested annual check-ins on coaches or better ways for students to report issues.
“They definitely need some type of in-person evaluation,” Student Three said. “Or they need to give an evaluation period where they watch during tryouts or something.”
While reporting on my article about student athlete struggles, I discovered that while the hiring process includes a board of students that gives feedback on the prospective coach, there is no official way of checking the continued viability of the coach after several years.
That is not to say that becoming a coach is in any way an easy process, and we should give credit where credit is due when it comes to the many trainings that low-paid coaches/volunteers commit to when they decide to work for the school. The requirements include multiple online courses (CPR/AED, first aid, concussion, SCA, heat illness, etc.) that must be renewed every two to four years.
San Mateo Union High School District also publicly displays its outside coaching requirements on its official district website. After thorough searching, I discovered that the only way to get access to the requirements for our own district’s coaches was by emailing that school’s Athletic Director, which unfortunately resulted in my inability to get access to them. However, San Mateo’s requirements are roughly the same as the Sequoia district’s.
The PAL handbook states that “the profession of coaching is a profession of teaching. In addition to teaching the mental and physical dimensions of their sport, coaches, through words and example, must also strive to build the character of their athletes by teaching them to be trustworthy, respectful, responsible, fair, caring and good citizens.”
Our coaches clearly lack the proper training to uphold these values of the PAL, which has resulted in an easy way for lightly regulated coaches to fall into a pattern of poor coaching as the years from their initial hiring and training pass.
In order to put an end to the mistreatment of Woodside’s athletes and continue the school’s fantastic athletic programs, some checkpoints need to be put in place to ensure the consistent eligibility of coaches. After hiring, coaches should be evaluated every two years, giving students at least two formal opportunities to anonymously provide feedback about the team. Additionally, coaches should be required to undergo training on the fundamentals of coaching at least once every two years. This could be done through the Positive Coaching Alliance that the district has partnered with to promote fair, ethical coaching practices. The desires of the CIF, athletic boosters and the school in terms of athletics have been written on paper dozens of times. In fact, every year the coach’s handbook is updated with both old and new regulations. However, written laws mean nothing if no action is taken to enforce them.
Over the last month, I’ve talked to several dozen students who all had some negative experience with a sport. Unfortunately, there is no way to completely eliminate this possibility and overcoming challenges is an important part of student development. However, it seems that with this exact mindset we have lost sight of the purpose of high school sports. One student put the big takeaway both simply and eloquently.
“People need to listen to students’ input more … because sports should be fun,” Student Three said.
