Shula's Firing and Reflections on Coaching in Catholic Schools

In our state, when a coach at Auburn or Alabama gets fired, it’s big news. The story “broke” at 12:13 a.m. two days ago that Mike Shula, head coach at Alabama, had been fired. By 12:45 a.m., all the state’s newspapers were frantically trying to include the news for their morning editions. And so goes the coaching carousel at Alabama in the illusory search for the next Bear Bryant.

Still, the news is further evidence of what matters in big-time athletics in our country. Shula inherited a program on probation because coaches and boosters cheated by offering money to recruits. During Shula’s short stint, there was no hint of any such scandal, and everyone praised him, including the athletic director who fired him, for running the program with integrity. But of course, this didn’t matter as much as Shula’s mediocre 6-6 record this year, or the fact that Alabama has lost to cross state rival Auburn for five years in a row. It’s a cliché, but winning is what matters, pure and simple.

What about in high school programs? What about in Catholic high school programs? What role should “winning” play in a school’s decision to retain its coaches? Idealists may claim that it should not be a factor, but I think, frankly, that school leaders who put winning as a low priority are being naïve: our communities want programs which are competitive, and they expect a coach to build that within their respective teams. An expectation of excellence ought to pervade every feature of a school’s program, whether it’s the performance of A.P. Physics students on the A.P. exam, Band performances in regional and state band competitions, or athletic teams on the playing fields.

How Catholic schools contextualize these expectations, however, makes all the difference. I believe that our schools ought to expect four fundamental things from its coaches, and on these four bases, I believe coaches in a Catholic school are appropriately judged:

First, do they advance the mission of the Catholic school? Coaches, like teachers, principals and staff members, are co-educators, and our common goal is to build students of faith, virtue and wisdom. Athletics in particular can be a powerful “classroom” for teaching virtue: putting team first, striving to be the best, handling winning and losing with grace, handling pressure, to mention only a few. In this context, trying to win can be embraced, for when teams are competitive, coaches can demand more of student athletes and push them harder to sacrifice themselves for team goals. As an example, excellent off season weight-lifting and conditioning programs typical of first rate programs teach athletes to delay gratification, something our culture doesn’t otherwise promote! So winning, then, becomes a means, and not the end, of an athletic program. Coaches should be expected, in their deportment, goal setting and leadership of young men and women, to advance the school’s mission.

Second, though winning is a worthy goal of every coach within this context, the reality is that some years, the athletes just aren’t there to produce lofty won-loss records. Improvement, then, becomes the standard by which a coach ought to be judged. Are the players getting better, both in terms of their individual abilities and in terms of their working together as a team? When coaches do a good job improving their teams, even during the “off-years”, the wild swings between teams being 10-1 one year and 1-10 the next should be evened out over time.

Third, how well do coaches teach as part of their “regular” school day? One of the most common yet inexcusable mistakes that coaches make is to regard their teaching load as a necessary evil to land a coaching job, paying scant attention to preparing their classes, not keeping up with their grading, or even worse, to use class time as an opportunity to prepare for the game that night. Let’s be honest: coaches in Alabama receive sizable stipends that typically mean they’re paid better than a ordinary teacher in a school. The only way that can be rationalized, out of justice, is that the coaching stipend reflects work that is above and beyond a normal teacher’s load. When coaches subordinate their teaching to their coaching as “either-or” and don’t regard it as “both-and”, I believe that’s grounds for firing a coach, regardless of how successful their teams are.

Finally, how well do coaches handle the “peripheral” parts of coaching? For example, do they insist with their athletes to keep locker-rooms clean? Do they protect school inventory? Do they secure the building when they leave? Do they keep fields locked up after practices? Do they insist that practice fields are left free from litter? Some coaches become so myopic about their coaching that they forget these are important barometers of their coaching success from the view point of athletic directors and principals! Coaches must be reliable in these matters.

When coaches do these four things well, they can be powerful, positive influences in the lives of their players and in the whole milieu of their schools. May we find and cultivate such coaches!

A Retelling of the Parable of the Rich Young Man (Luke 18:18-23)

And so it happened that a young teacher asked Jesus this question:

"Rabbi, what must I do to become a more professional educator?"

"Why do you call me good?" Jesus asked. "No one is good but God alone. You know the commandments: Prepare your lessons diligently, turn back work on time, treat students with respect and expect the same from your students."

The young man beamed. "I have done all of those things from the first day I became a teacher".

Jesus, eying him, replied "There is one thing further you must do. Take the student who is most troublesome to you, and treat him as your only son."

The young man walked away sad, for he was a busy man.

To Intervene or Not to Intervene? Advice to parents

What do you do if a teacher has shown a video which you are upset over? What if your child has received a grade that seems unfair? What do you do when your child is having social difficulties or personal problems?

If you choose to discuss it with school officials, what is the best forum to do so: in a conference, perhaps? Over the phone? Via email? And to whom? The teacher? The principal?

Inevitably, you will face such dilemmas. As a former principal of a high school, I met with parents daily to discuss matters of concern to them. But I'm a parent, too. I still remember the day I gave my eldest child away to the care of another adult (his kindergarten teacher). Letting our children grow up is just as tough on us parents as it is our kids! How much do we hold on? How much do we let go? These issues all come to play in the decision to intervene or not to intervene as a parent.

Study after study has shown that schools in which parents are actively involved are better able to sustain high academic standards. That only makes sense. If schools and families are in a silent tug of war over school policies and practices, the children lose regardless. One of the worst mistakes American educators have made has been to assume that parents really don't care about their children's education, leading them to adopt the implicit philosophy: "Leave the education to us and we'll leave the parenting to you". In other words, leave us alone. And so, over time, public support for schools has eroded, standards have dropped, and predictably, grade inflation has run rampant, as teachers cannot sustain demanding classrooms without parental support.

The short answer, then, is you should talk to teachers and principals when matters concern you. However, the other question, perhaps more complex, is "What steps, if any, ought to be followed before intervention"? Clearly these steps vary according to the age and the situation. In general, as the child matures, the increasing push should be that he or she meets with the teacher to address the matter first.

Recently two similar circumstances involving grades came to my attention. In the first case, a junior boy had failed the quarter in math. The parents asked their son the reason why, who said (in typically eloquent fashion for a teen-age boy) "I dunno". So the parents called the teacher, who then explained that he had not turned in several assignments, had failed a major test, etc. Although the parents were now informed, the boy resented the fact that the teacher and his parents were talking about him behind his back, and just as predictably, disputed some of the claims the teacher made about his homework.

In the second case, the parents of a sophomore boy insisted that he schedule a meeting with the teacher to find out precisely the reason for the failure. He did so, reluctantly. During this meeting, the teacher had the opportunity to show the boy his grades in the book, to point out the blank spots where assignments were not turned in, and to probe the boy about his study habits, his note-taking and his overall effort. The conversation between the boy and his parents thus took on an entirely different flavor, for in this case, the boy took ownership of his failure. He had, after all, met as an adult with an adult who was straight with him, he was given the opportunity to question the teacher over his concerns, and he was even allowed to cast his own spin of the failure to his parents (teens always appreciate this!).

I would advocate this second approach in almost every case concerning a high school age child. I understand the great urge within us as parents to intervene on our child's behalf. Call it the nurturing instinct. But even in cases when the child is convinced that the teacher "doesn't like him or her", I think it is appropriate to insist the child talks about this directly with the teacher. For teachers, these are wonderful, teachable moments. For students, they are opportunities for growth and maturation.

However, if after talking to your child about what the teacher has told him or her you still have concerns (or suspicions!), or if similar concerns persist over time, then you should talk with the teacher. I suggest this procedure:

1) Schedule a meeting with the teacher face to face, rather than over the telephone. The more potentially emotional the difficulty, the more strongly I’d argue this point. Telephone conversations are partially anonymous, which often leads to brasher (and less helpful) statements; moreover, during difficult sessions, it is good to be able to read non-verbal body language. Email, for this reason, is the WORST way to communicate to resolve problems! Keep email on the level of swapping information.

2) When the meeting is scheduled, tell the teacher what the topic is. It gives the teacher some time to ponder the situation, review his or her own actions, and contribute helpfully to the meeting.

3) Assuming that the child has already spoken directly with the teacher, I believe it's important NOT to have the student at that meeting, at least at first. The most desirable goal is that parents and teacher can be open enough to disagree with each other candidly (and amicably); such disagreement is not healthy with the student in the meeting, witnessing the disjunction between the two most significant sets of adults in his or her life. Meeting alone allows time for teacher and adult to explore areas of common ground if possible. After the common ground is established, then the child can be brought back into the conference.

When should you meet with the principal concerning difficulties? I think there a 4 times, broadly stated: a) If your meeting with the teacher still leaves you concerned; b) If the matter involves your child's health or safety; c) If the point of dispute is over a policy or common practice of the school; d) If you need to share confidential information or personal concerns about your child (such as a divorce). Depending on the school's size, this fourth area might be discussed with the guidance counselor instead.

If a genie granted me three wishes to remedy the problems in education America is facing today, I would first ask that we abolish third person pronouns when speaking of the school. No more "They's" or "he's" or "she's"--only "we's". The fact is, the school belongs to the community, not to the principal or the faculty. Furthermore, this distinction between teachers and parents is unhelpful. The important difference is that between the adults (parents and teachers) and the students. Our unspoken message to the students is, very simply, "Be like us". To the extent we can communicate a consistent message of who were are, kids, however reluctantly, will model themselves after us.

Second, I'd wish for more parent--teacher interaction. We have got to start seeing each other as real people, not as "John's mother" or simply "Mrs. Jones, the French teacher" but as "Betty" and "Cecilia". This means extraordinary effort from both sides. It means parents volunteering as coaches, room mothers, concession stand workers, working on curriculum committees, school boards and giving car pools. It means teachers calling parents to PRAISE John for improvement as well as when he is having difficulties, to be open and welcoming to parents with concerns, and to sit and talk with them during basketball games, PTA nights, and other meetings. There is no magic to forming positive working relationships.

Finally, I'd wish we adults would remember that we have the same end in mind: the best interest of the kids. My wife and I disagree (sometimes strongly!) on how best to handle our own kids. Naturally, parents and teachers will disagree now and then, but we want the best for our kids. Teachers wouldn't teach otherwise, at least not for very long. Parents wouldn't care enough to pursue the matter with the school!