Re: "Daddy Ball" alive and well at SCSS
Posted by:
Francois
()
Date: October 25, 2011 09:41PM
This is a letter that I sent to the athletic department of a high school that was guilty of, among other things, nepotism. The letter addressed the father-coaching issue. In my opinion, the teachers union saw to it that it never was acted on.
The letter:
"If the school's athletic department wants to positively address issues of fairness - and
perception of fairness - in its sports programs, it can take a big step in that direction, simply and quickly, by ending
the practice of allowing fathers to coach the team of which their own child is a member. This practice constitutes a
conflict of interest, a conflict of interest that involves the most powerful of instincts - PARENTAL. Schools,
on the front lines of having to deal with the parental instincts on a daily basis, understand this. They understand this
better than anyone. Father-coaching, a conflict of interest involving the most powerful of instincts, fraught with potential for abuse,
in putting in charge of a team a person who will inevitably have to make a choice between either hurting the team or
hurting his own child, invites abuse.
By way of illustrating, and at risk of stating the obvious, let's assume a program is floundering, that its team is suffering
defeat after defeat, and that this is happening because the program's rigor needs to be intensified. Why, in such a case,
should this program have to suffer a coach who, as he considers meeting this need, has to wrangle with the
possibility that in meeting it he might hurt his own child. Let's face it, greater rigor certainly WILL hurt his
own child if his child is already on the cusp of quitting because the program's rigor for him is already too great.
Will not more strenuous practices, tougher competition, and greater off-season work only make his child MORE
want to throw in the towel? Given this, when this happens, can administration count on the father-coach to act for
the team and not for his child? Parental instincts are indeed extremely powerful. They are extremely powerful and
they do not miraculously disappear when a parent becomes a coach. I was a father-coach, I had them, and I couldn't
always control them.
At risk of again stating the obvious, I'll make the point another way.
What if you are a parent of a child on a team coached by a father-coach? What if your child and the
father-coach's child are in competition for the same position? What if your child and the father-coach's child
are in competition for a same special award? What if the father-coach covets for his child that position?
What if he covets that same special award?
What if in the past the father-coach's child ALWAYS FINISHED SECOND TO YOUR CHILD?
Parents can be competitive. Sometimes this competitiveness degenerates to jealousy. With competitiveness
degenerating to jealousy, and this is where it can get ugly, what if you then start to see signs of an agenda by the
jealous father-coach, a personal agenda, a personal agenda pursued deviously, with alliances and manipulation,
and a scrutiny and undermining, a scrutiny and undermining designed to destroy the desire, self-confidence,
and spirit of the child in the way - YOUR child?
If one argues that when this happens a parent can speak out I assert that parents know that coaches have
been known to retaliate and that, therefore, they realize it can be a perilous course to speak out. Justifiably or unjustifiably,
parents do not trust they can speak out, at least not candidly and safely, never mind respectably and factually.
Furthermore, as great as this hesitation - or fear - may be generally, it's magnified when the problem
exists in a small town, a small town where there are far fewer realistic options to resort to when speaking out
has resulted in alienating the coach. Equivalent alternative public and private schools tend to not be in abundance
in small towns. Add to this a small town's generally greater social, political, and economic constraints - schools are
big employers and "big mouths" don't get hired - and one should not have to strain to see how when this happens,
when parents are faced with abuse of power by a coach that affects their child, they tend to look for reasons to
not speak out. Looking for reasons to not speak out, choosing to remain silent, parents "eat it". They eat it, and
the situation continues, to the detriment of not just the child in the way, but to also to the team, the athletic
department, and the school in general.
Ending the practice of father-coaching will not solve all the problems involved with maintaining fairness - of
"politics" - in interscholastic sports in our athletic department. Agreed, it would do much to prevent nepotism, but it would do nothing
to, for example, rectify cronyism or graft, or any other abuses that can adversely affect inter-scholastic sports everywhere.
However, despite this, ending father-coaching - at the school level - will certainly solve one specific and significant problem, and, in solving
it, advance one of athletic administration's most noble of charges, that being administrating for fairness. When our athletic department does this our sports will be better, better even despite the loss the many
father-coaches who, as they coached, effectively and admirably managed their conflict of interest.
Athletes who courageously work hard, follow adult guidance, who trust adults
to be fair - who in some cases grow up going to sleep with their uniform on - are entitled to athletic
administration's making serious efforts to not have to resort to father-coaching. Athletes - ALL athletes - are entitled
to this because all athletes deserve a coach who it can be certain is putting the team first, and all athletes deserve a
coach who it can be certain is always hoping they - EVERY ONE OF THEM - do well.