Administrators call for replacing girls hockey coach...

[buttercupbell29]

Just wanted to know what anyone thought of this new proposal or if anyone had heard about it? The coach in question is from International Falls. He was the one to start the girls hockey program and had coached it at a club level before taking it to a varsity level at Falls High School. I don't agree at all with the way the school board is handling this. Shouldn't the coach have any say in all of this?????

Administrators call for replacing girls hockey coach of seven years
-Board tables proposal to current coach a job-
By DAVID SCHUELLER
Staff Writer

Falls School Board members heard a proposal at their Monday night meeting to not offer Tim Mellstrom a 2006-2007 head girls hockey coach contract.
The proposal was added to the agenda just prior to the meeting by Superintendent Don Langan.
The measure ----- which was tabled until the next board meeting ---- came from a recommendation by Falls High School Athletic Director Josh Koenig and Principal Tim Everson. It was supported by Langan.
After the meeting, Koenig would only say "We are doing what's in the best interests of the program," when asked about the recommendation.
Koenig had notified Mellstrom of the decision Sunday evening.
Mellstrom said he would respond to specific comments by school administrators if they made any.
The seven-year coach did note that last year 25 girls from the program were playing at either junior varsity or varsity hockey level.
At Monday's meeting board members were scheduled to approve the hire of a total of 23 staff members and coaches as well as approve Langan's contract.
Will Awe, assistant baseball coach, said at the meeting he didn't think it was a good policy for board members to act on the agenda additions --- such as the one regarding Mellstrom ---- without the public's prior knowledge.
After tabling the agenda addition, members went on to hire 22 coaches and approve Langan's contract.

[ghshockeyfan]

__

[buttercupbell29]

Yup, I have to agree with what you said!!! Soo true!!

The big deciding factor I think for this coach was the 'parents'. I'm from the Falls area and I know that a lot of the parents have complained over the years about this coach in particular. But then again, name any given coach that parent's don't complain about.

The thing that gets me is that the Falls High school has a lot of new administrators too. They aquired a new superintendent and a new atheletic director last year. So who's to say just by watching one year of Tim Mellstrom coaching a girls hockey team do they have the right to propose to not renew his contract? There are a couple of other coaches in general where the school district should be taking a look at as well for the "better of their programs" if such is the case, but he was the only coach singled out so far.

In who will replace this coach....the school hired a new phyed teacher who is from Warroad and who has hockey experience under his belt. He just may be the one...??

[hshockeyfan91]

I have three kids who have played various high school sports. Each has played multiple sports, so over the years we have encountered a fair number of coaches. Our kids have never open enrolled or transferred to private schools. We have never once gone to the AD or Principal to complain about a coach, nor do we try to stir up the crowd behind the backs of the administration/coaches. Bottom line we have taken the good with the bad in the district we live in over the years.

I think there are some terrific high school coaches - coaches who communicate well with players and parents, who run excellent practices / are good teachers, use good game strategies, and are good at motivating players. Sometimes even an excellent coach will have losing seasons, but generally success follows coaches who display these qualities.

That being said there are coaches who have significant weaknesses - sometimes in multiple areas. In some cases they are not very good teachers or motivators, and become abusive when success does not happen on the field or rink. While team games are not about individuals, neither are individuals just “cogs in the coach’s program” – expendable. Some coaches use strategies and styles that take virtually all the fun out of the game. Every year you see older kids in various places who leave the HS program and just drop out, or play somewhere “where it’s fun”. Sometimes those kids (or parents) are “trouble makers”, but often they just play for coaches who have drained the fun out of the game.

Now I do believe that an administration should stand behind coaches – I don’t think it is fair to let players or parents work in a destructive manner. But when I read in the paper, online posts, etc. it appears very much to me like most administrators simply want conflict to go away…very rarely are issues that are pointed out to an administration taken as a challenge to improve; rather more often it’s treated with a dismissive attitude.

In most large companies employees are given at least annual performance reviews. Very often these reviews include 360 feedback – from peers and subordinates. What’s the point of this feedback? The point is to make individual aware of areas of strength and areas of opportunity. The long term goal is to make that person a better, more well rounded contributor. Do schools ever ask for feedback on coaches? Does the administration ever work to make coaches better? Frankly I don’t see evidence of that very often. Most families chose just not to bring up the minor stuff, and only when it gets really bad do they look for options, options like:

a) Quitting
b) Open enrolling in another school
c) Lobbying to get the coach removed

None of those are good options, but they happen because coaches with significant flaws are allowed to continue in their position year after year, and people who point out the flaws are seen as trouble makers.

So, bottom line. Should coaches have tenure? No. The good coaches, even ones with flaws who are willing to get feedback that enables them to learn and improve, don’t need it, and the “bad” coaches don’t deserve it. Should open enrollment still be an option for a kid in a bad program or with a bad coach? Absolutely. Parents and kids can be troublemakers, but the flip side is that there are coaches that bring grief on themselves. Not every criticism of a coach is unjustified.

[GoFigure]

Hshockeyfan91, well said! I couldn't agree more.

[hockey21]

Hockeyfan91,

sometimes parents are upset because their kid is not on the line, the team, the PP or the PK unit they think they should be on and this person then trys to rally the parents to start to point out things that aren't even there but by the end even though the faults are not there the coaches is branded that he or she has these faults. I have seen it happen and it happens to a lot more good coaches than not. It is an easy way for a parent to get back at a coach or make life tough for the them so they might quit. I am on the side of giving coaches either tenure or at the very least 3 year contracts so the parents know that person will be there for that amount of time and than evalute them at the end of the contract. It takes time for a program to grow and if parents are always sticking their nose in there it just makes it tougher on everybody.

[hshockeyfan91]

hockey21, you are right in that there are some difficult parents to work with - absolutely. For example, I know my kids are absolutely the best and should always be on the ice (just joking...don't choke!!). Seriously however, I guess I don't know of any specific situations where what you described happened - I'm not doubting you - I just don't know enough.

However, as a generalization, realizing that there are exceptions, I think it's very possible that a coach who gets picked at that way has set himself/herself up - there's probably more going on than just the one parent - one kid issue. There is something else that allows the "rogue parent" to light the fire, otherwise the other parents would ignore the him/her.

For example, some coaches think nothing of regularly using techniques to motivate and instruct that would result in termination if they used the same techniques with adults. Do you want to get yelled at in front of your peers? Do you want to get kicked off a big project at work, without being told why (of course you should know why automatically, there's no need for your manager to tell you, right?), do you want your manager to swear at you and/or your co-workers? Do you want your manager to tell you that everything is cool, and then suddenly a week later give you a horrible performance review? These are all things that parents see (some) coaches do to players. Again, as an example, if things like that are going on, and some parent gets bent about playing time for his/her kid, then there might be enough "ill will" floating around that some trouble can be ignited.

I really don't believe that there are many fabulous coaches out there, who do all the right things, and suddenly one parent is able to get rid of them. Coaches who teach well and work players hard at practices, who communicate with the kids, and at times during the season with parents, coaches who motivate appropriately, etc. are generally given a pretty long rope to work with. Are there exceptions? - certainly - I'm sure there are some outstanding coaches who were ripped off, but how about the players too? Are there not some players who would suffer under bad coaches who were protected by tenure inappropriately? How do we protect the kids who are playing for a bad coach? Isn't that every bit as important of a question as protecting the coaches? This is all about the kids, isn't it?

[GivinYaTheBusiness]

hshockeyfan91:
Well said! I couldn't have said it better myself. I'm glad there's still some out there who understand.

[buttercupbell29]

[quote="hshockeyfan91"]I really don't believe that there are many fabulous coaches out there, who do all the right things, and suddenly one parent is able to get rid of them. Coaches who teach well and work players hard at practices, who communicate with the kids, and at times during the season with parents, coaches who motivate appropriately, etc. are generally given a pretty long rope to work with. Are there exceptions? - certainly - I'm sure there are some outstanding coaches who were ripped off, but how about the players too? Are there not some players who would suffer under bad coaches who were protected by tenure inappropriately? How do we protect the kids who are playing for a bad coach? Isn't that every bit as important of a question as protecting the coaches? This is all about the kids, isn't it?[/quote]

If it's all about the kids....then how come the parents are the one's doing all the complaining all the time? The sport is suppose to be for the kid...not the parent. But yet it seems like it's the parents that are always complaining because their kid isn't getting enough ice time etc. I mean sure sometimes the complaints are well justified; but if it's suppose to be for the kids then let it be for the kids. I think kids if they have a problem with the coaching or how they game is being played should have the say. Sometimes I think the parents get way too involved in how they think their son/daughter should be playing.

Ya there are good and bad coaches out there. But nobody is ever going to be completely satsified with a coach. The issue I had at hand here was a coach who started coaching the girls hockey program at a club level and eventually took it to a varsity level. He put a lot of time and effort into the program when no one else was willing to put on their skates and help out or take over. Coming from a small town we have lots of little cliques and parents are one of them. The main problem the parents had with him I believe was they didn't like his coaching style. Or in their eyes they didn't like the way their daugthers were being coached...like I said it goes back to the parents and what they want for their son/daughter not what the kid seems to think (depending on the kid's opinion).

The main concern I had with the school's administration not wanting to renew Tim Mellstrom's contract was what are the facts? Why? They still haven't let the public know that yet, except to say...'it's in the best intersest of the program.' In the past few years the program has gotten better and better under Tim's coaching. The numbers have increased...more games have been won...there was a junior varsity program added last year. Then there's a new administration added to the Falls High School last year and they decide that it's time for out with the old and in with the new.

[hshockeyfan91]

Butercupbell29 - easy answers on why it’s parents, often not the kids, “complaining”: 1) no one would listen to the kids and 2) they fear retaliation. As an example, I was just talking to a parent a while back. They were telling me about how their daughter talked to a coach 1-on-1 (i.e. privately, away from the team…without mom or dad intervening – the right way to do it, correct?) and asked about playing a different position. The next time the team was together the coach singled that player out in front of the team and said that “she was not acting like a team player.” Unfortunately, similar type things do happen more often that we want to admit. Is it any wonder that kids often don’t speak up publicly and instead go to their parents?

As a parallel, when a kid starts to drive, you don’t just say “go for it dear…have a nice trip…” There is that year of permit time first when the parent is with their kid. The first few days the parent is curled up in fear, putting their foot through the floorboard in a futile attempt to stop the car, etc. Then after awhile there are fewer comments, and eventually, when the kid is 16, they are off on their own. But even after that, there might be a time where the “new driver” needs advice – maybe when in unfamiliar territory or an especially difficult place to drive. The trick is that the parent speaks / advises less and less often over time and lets the new driver make more and more decisions on their own. When parents voice their hockey related concerns they are not necessarily complaining, they are stating that they perceive an issue. Maybe their kids has already tried to deal with the issue. While the parent might be out of line, is it also not possible that there really IS an issue – something the coach SHOULD be doing differently?

I heard a coach say once, only partially in joking, that he wished he coached a team of orphans as there would be no parents to deal with. My thought to that was you have a team with no parents, and you would not have a team. Who would drive them to umpteen practices and games (or help them buy their car when they are older), pay the ice bills, coaching fees and equipment bills, and encourage them when they are discouraged, etc. Yeh, we as parents can go overboard at times – and there are some bad apples – but the vast majority of parents let their kids own issues as much as possible. When a parent does say something it deserves not to be brushed off reflexively.

Let’s refocus for a minute. I would say that the vast majority of coaches are competent, or even better – as I said earlier, some are flat out terrific. Some coaches are fine overall, but they need to improve in one or two areas. However, some coaches are NOT very good. I don’t know of any parents who are asking for perfection in coaches, but most players and parents want a coach who listens and tries to improve. In any case, just because a parent opens his/her mouth does not mean that they are complaining and should shut up; they might or might not have a valid reason.

Also, while I’m writing I need to respond to an earlier comment in the thread by another person, who said “coaches lack incentive to build a program if they’re not given tenure”. To that I say “welcome to the real world.” The vast majority of people go to work every day without any kind of contract or tenure. Should I go into my boss tomorrow and let him know that “I really don’t want to invest much in my job because someday you might get rid of me?” I don’t think that would go over really well.

As for Tim Mellstrom / I Falls he could well be the exception – a great coach doing everything right who is just getting the shaft. If that’s the case, I really do feel sorry for him, and I hope that he lands on his feet somewhere. But the bottom line solution is not tenure. Granting tenure as a solution is like spraying Glade air freshener – it doesn’t get rid of the odor, it just masks the odor. A much better solution would be for schools to commit to soliciting player and parent feedback on an annual basis, and then doing something about it. If a coach has been great for 5 years, and gets one comment in year 6, I would say it’s highly likely that there is a parent/player out of line. If everyone hates the coach year in and year out, wouldn’t that tell you something? Maybe the coach needs some help. The goal of this is to intervene and help the coach be better, not fire him/her. By doing nothing the administration lets situations fester until there is no choice but removing the coach. Sad.

[ghshockeyfan]

Also, while I’m writing I need to respond to an earlier comment in the thread by another person, who said “coaches lack incentive to build a program if they’re not given tenure”. To that I say “welcome to the real world.” The vast majority of people go to work every day without any kind of contract or tenure. Should I go into my boss tomorrow and let him know that “I really don’t want to invest much in my job because someday you might get rid of me?” I don’t think that would go over really well.

Yes indeed, but does your job pay more than $5000 a year? My guess is so, and that that is your main means of supporting yourself. That's your incentive for doing your job WELL!!!

Coaching is totally different. I think we're missing the point of what mutual long-term investment by district & coach could mean. I'll clairify when I have a moment - but I've removed my earlier post as it obvioulsy was not clear or understodd (or, we simply disagree).

[ghshockeyfan]

If coaches were treated like long-term employees there would be incentive to do the advanced training (360 feedback, etc.) by both sides (coach & district). Currently, what incentive is there on either end? NONE.

Do people really believe that tenure would allow coaches to abuse kids? I highly doubt it. Does it allow teachers to? NO.

What tenure would do is level the playing field so that one parent that gets on a mission would have to have a true investigation into allegations vs. just dismissing based on unsubstantiated claims, political influence of administrators by parents, etc.

I think that many don't know how many GREAT and I mean GREAT coaches have been victim of the current system.

The worse thing is that I really don't care about the coaches, as they're adults, but who is really suffering is all the kids who could have so much more dedication from admin & coaches alike. Can you imagine what this would do for the quality of our HS programs & more so youth programs? It would be amazing!

But, instead, out of fear of being stuck with a couple bad coaches we lose all the great passionate ones when they don't agree with the most vocal/wealthy/influential parent who (for example) can't get their way with them because their kid isn't playing, etc. - but that parent can get their way with the admin, etc.

What happens instead is that the best coaches will burn out, quit, or just jump around if they stay in coaching. Why put any advanced effort in to building a program? I mean, if you get a couple upset parents - you are gone! It’s easier to just recruit kids to another school!

This also amazes me as many parents want to sit on a coaching selection committee, yet none care who is being hired as TEACHERS at a school!

And, we all know that our coaches probably teach our kids as much about "life lessons," morals, ethics, values, citizenship, etc., etc. - but after we put all that effort into hiring the perfect coaching candidate to teach these things to our children (IN ADDITION TO HOCKEY) we want to do nothing to guarantee retention of the individual - and we do nothing to give her or him an incentive to go above and beyond the terms of their contract to build a solid program top-to-bottom and put in the time and effort far beyond that of the "paycheck." (I’m not sure if you can call fractions of a penny per hour a paycheck, but we’ll call it that for now!)

Coaching HS Hockey is not a full time job. Thus, there are not normal "real-life" incentives to build a program top-to-bottom, do advanced training, and put in tons of extra work, time, effort, and energy. We rely currently on a person's passion to be what brings these things out (the extra effort). The problem is that even the most passionate people are smart enough to see that they can be easily pushed out in the current setup no matter if they are doing what is right.

Teacher-coaches had incentive years ago as they were tenured as teachers and seemed subsequently too as coaches. We don't have those teacher-coaches as often anymore.

The turnover rate is absurd at this point, and we wonder why that is? It's because we don't see value in committing to the same people that we expect to commit so much time & effort above & beyond.

Is that truly logical?

[hshockeyfan91]

Others are way better connected than me to know how many great coaches have been booted out of positions. I am sure there are some…how many I don’t know. Yet, I still cling to my two basic theories:

1) When a coach is successfully hassled by a single parent (or very small group), there usually (not always) is more going on in the background. For example, I know of one coach this year that left a relatively successful program about whom I’m pretty sure only a handful (if any) of the girls liked playing for. Does a successful coach have to intimidate players? Do players have to hate a coach? I don’t think so. The players (and the parents who voice the concerns) do have a story to tell, and often when a coach leaves we hear about “the poor coach…he/she was railroaded out of town”. Once again, that might be true, but there is another side that I think other coaches & administrators refuse to see. Maybe the coach did have a “dark side” (for lack of a better way to put it!). Maybe if parents/players had been listened to in the past there could have been an intervention that helped the coach overcome some issues, and the situation would not have deteriorated to the point the coach was forced out.

2) A coach should work to build the program as if they are going to be there 20 years. This is a self-fulfilling prophecy in many ways. The coaches who do get involved tend to gain support from a broader audience and are more likely able to beat back a small group of detractors when necessary. The coach who doesn’t get involved does not build support and is easier to force out. Whether a coach is getting paid $5,000 or $50,000 really isn’t the point. For example, I regularly hear about college or pro coaches in various sports who started off as unpaid volunteer assistants, worked hard and launched successful careers. The point is that it’s not the money; it’s the vision and passion. Frankly, I have heard from too many coaches over the years (in multiple sports) who (when hired) talk big about developing the base program and wind up 1) showing up for a handful of youth games in the summer (yawn…big deal) and/or 2) running camps, clinics and leagues that seem to be more for the purpose of generating income than actually meeting player needs. In other words, I’m not convinced that a lot of coaches WANT to develop a broader based program – everyone says that – but do they really mean it?

I think the stats show that roughly 20% to 25% of MN HS Girl’s hockey coaches are replaced each year. However, the stats don’t show how many were forced out (actively or passively) vs voluntary quits. Many coaches leave because of better opportunities, or their personal life requirements are different – maybe a spouse gets a job in a new city, etc. In other words, it’s not like every four years every program kicks out their coach.

A possible constructive way is to look at the problem of coaches being strung out to dry without help is to look at the situation from the opposite perspective – instead of measuring how many coaches have left, rather look at how many coaches are staying in their positions 5-10 years? Most importantly, are there some common techniques / methods / attitudes among these coaches that help them continue in their role? I suspect that many of these coaches are the quiet performers who really are making things happen year in and year out (even if a state title is not the result). My kids have each been fortunate enough to play for some great coaches in various sports that no one knows about – men and women who do a great job year in and year out, without tenure, and who are respected, appreciated and even revered in some ways. They probably have some things they could teach other coaches.

Again, I appreciate the discussion – I think these are good things to talk about. I do see wisdom in some of the “opposing points.” As you read my comments I hope you realize that I respect and appreciate the efforts of the vast majority of coaches. I agree 100% that some coaches do get treated badly. I do not want that to happen. I would like to come up with better ways to handle tough players/parents so “bad things don’t happen to good coaches”. I just don’t think tenure is the way to protect coaches.

[ghshockeyfan]

Others are way better connected than me to know how many great coaches have been booted out of positions. I am sure there are some…how many I don’t know. Yet, I still cling to my two basic theories:

I think your theories are sound in theory, just not certain as to if they translate into real world realities in practice in this day & age of easily disposable coaches for little reason.

1) When a coach is successfully hassled by a single parent (or very small group), there usually (not always) is more going on in the background.

Agreed, it is usually - but not always.

For example, I know of one coach this year that left a relatively successful program about whom I’m pretty sure only a handful (if any) of the girls liked playing for. Does a successful coach have to intimidate players? Do players have to hate a coach? I don’t think so.

In this context I agree with you. There are different types of coaches & motivation approaches. Never though should one be scaring kids. Players should respect their coaches, but not fear attack by them, etc.

The players (and the parents who voice the concerns) do have a story to tell, and often when a coach leaves we hear about “the poor coach…he/she was railroaded out of town”. Once again, that might be true, but there is another side that I think other coaches & administrators refuse to see.

There are two sides to every story. Tenure and a related dismissal process would allow for both sides to be heard and ruled upon.

Maybe the coach did have a “dark side” (for lack of a better way to put it!).

Anything is possible, but I find it hard for coaches to be hired and pass background checks if they do have issues.

Maybe if parents/players had been listened to in the past there could have been an intervention that helped the coach overcome some issues, and the situation would not have deteriorated to the point the coach was forced out.

Agreed, and tenure is the rationale for coach/district/parents to invest in such a process in my mind.

2) A coach should work to build the program as if they are going to be there 20 years. This is a self-fulfilling prophecy in many ways. The coaches who do get involved tend to gain support from a broader audience and are more likely able to beat back a small group of detractors when necessary.

In a full-time job you may be "encouraged" to do work to secure your job that you're not specifically paid for or that is not written into your job description/expectations. The difference is coaching isn't a full-time position that is a coach's means of supporting themselves. Without pay that justifies the "extra" work, or at least security (tenure) in doing unpaid work that you will reap the rewards of, why would you do it except out of passion for the game?

The coach who doesn’t get involved does not build support and is easier to force out.

Agreed. But this can also backfire if the Youth Assn. doesn't mesh philosophically/etc. with your approach and a few parents decide they want you out.

Whether a coach is getting paid $5,000 or $50,000 really isn’t the point.

I disagree. I believe that most coaches would give you $50000 worth of work for $5000 + tenure. This is my point entirely and where I think we may have to agree to disagree.

For example, I regularly hear about college or pro coaches in various sports who started off as unpaid volunteer assistants, worked hard and launched successful careers.

I agree, but not all our coaches aspire to coach for a living. Some just want to give back to the game, but have some incentive that their work isn't pointless in the sense that some may wish to see things through to fruition vs. just until the first parent can get you fired, the school can decide to "go another direction," etc. for undisclosed reasons.

The point is that it’s not the money; it’s the vision and passion.

Agreed. But, vision & passion without some return commitment are pointless as these things will never come to fruition with constant turnover.

Frankly, I have heard from too many coaches over the years (in multiple sports) who (when hired) talk big about developing the base program

They have to to get hired. Most may actually follow through with it more if they were 1) allowed to, 2) supported vs. fought in these efforts, 3) had incentive to do so in tenure.

and wind up 1) showing up for a handful of youth games in the summer (yawn…big deal)

Agreed about the "yawn…big deal!"

and/or 2) running camps, clinics and leagues that seem to be more for the purpose of generating income than actually meeting player needs.

I see this too, and is one reason why I don't like to put "undue influence" on my kids by running my own STP, etc. I hate even organizing anything during the summer waiver period as I've all too often see kids overbook and sign up in what appears to be an effort to appease the coach vs. doing for the benefit itself of the event.

In other words, I’m not convinced that a lot of coaches WANT to develop a broader based program – everyone says that – but do they really mean it?

I think all say it in an interview (except in the private schools as they usually don't have to as many don't have a youth assn. to worry about - but those privates have their own added issues obviously!). Not all mean it. Many do, but I think that some are smart enough to know that they may wait a year or two to "test the waters" if they do anything at all above & beyond. Some of that "wait" may be more about getting settled, stabilizing the main task at hand first (the HS program) and then going from there? The bottom line is that we're leaving a HUGE resource underutilized. We rely on these coaches' passion to even get them to consider taking on these thankless HS jobs at all! (and thank goodness they are so passionate!). We don't however give them reciprocation on their dedication. If we did, I can't even begin to think how much more incentive there would be for them to put in all that time above & beyond what they are already doing for essentially no pay. I've had countless conversations with coaches that are very willing to put in the time & effort at the very lowest youth levels to build a program, but they are concerned about the fact that it would be pointless with today's turnover, regular dismissal of quality coaches for poor reasons (if any) at best.

I think the stats show that roughly 20% to 25% of MN HS Girl’s hockey coaches are replaced each year. However, the stats don’t show how many were forced out (actively or passively) vs. voluntary quits. Many coaches leave because of better opportunities, or their personal life requirements are different – maybe a spouse gets a job in a new city, etc. In other words, it’s not like every four years every program kicks out their coach.

A possible constructive way is to look at the problem of coaches being strung out to dry without help is to look at the situation from the opposite perspective – instead of measuring how many coaches have left, rather look at how many coaches are staying in their positions 5-10 years?

Stats are right. But, many coaches are given the option to "resign" when "fired" and many do as they don't want to fight (tired enough of the work of the job let alone having to fight for it!). Many that burn out/get opposed cite family/work rationale for leaving after being threatened enough. Or they leave for "better options" when really thre is a backlash brewing behind the scenes. With 25% turnover, it is possible that every job opens at least once in a 4 year span or 5 more likely. Some jobs seem to open every year. Only 2 coaches remain with the same program for 10 years. Not sure how many active coaches we have that have 5+ years in G HS Head coaching even with multiple programs??? But I'd bet it's less than 25%???

Most importantly, are there some common techniques / methods / attitudes among these coaches that help them continue in their role? I suspect that many of these coaches are the quiet performers who really are making things happen year in and year out (even if a state title is not the result).

Yes. One is that the ones with the longest "tenure" are teacher-coaches. Two may be strong admin. support in addition to general or amazing success on the "playing field." Even then though some of the most successful programs/coaches know that that too can lead to issues - especially if you start to attract other good players from surrounding communities...

My kids have each been fortunate enough to play for some great coaches in various sports that no one knows about – men and women who do a great job year in and year out, without tenure, and who are respected, appreciated and even revered in some ways. They probably have some things they could teach other coaches.

This is a blessing, and I'm sure that these coaches could mentor others without years of experience. Unfortunate that you can't name their names here as it could give away who you are.

Again, I appreciate the discussion – I think these are good things to talk about. I do see wisdom in some of the “opposing points.” As you read my comments I hope you realize that I respect and appreciate the efforts of the vast majority of coaches. I agree 100% that some coaches do get treated badly. I do not want that to happen. I would like to come up with better ways to handle tough players/parents so “bad things don’t happen to good coaches”. I just don’t think tenure is the way to protect coaches.

I understand and think we just have to agree to disagree. I just see this as a way to get more out of very passionate & dedicated people who may be even more inclined to give more if there was some reciprocation re: this dedication. "Tenure" has a bad name, and it's unfortunate as many of the coaches that we'd even contemplate this for after a probationary period are some of the greatest people our kids may ever look up to as role models. It's just a shame that we don't do more to help these coaches help our kids more (in my mind).

I want to add, that I laugh when I read the postings for HS coaching jobs...

"Oversee entire program" etc., etc.

Well, the truth is that most coaches only need to do three things:

1)Show up for games/practices.
2)Show up for pre-&post-season meetings & banquet.
3)Stay out of trouble.

Anything beyond this is above & beyond. But, we've come to expect so, so, much more!

[hshockeyfan91]

As you indicated, we agree on a lot of stuff here. The exception being you believe tenure is the solution and I don't. I still think the real problem is that most athletic directors / administration do not want feedback on coaches and do very little about the feedback they do receive.

This morning I was at a soccer game talking to a parent whose daughter also plays basketball. As we were talking about the upcoming basketball season he mentioned that a number of girls (3 or 4?) who were on last year's varsity team were quitting this year (his daughter was not one of them; she is planning on playing). He said that while reasons vary a little the key thing is that this basketball coach apparently yells constantly and the girls get really tired of it, some to the point where they're saying "I guess I just don't want to play anymore." His comment was "I really blame the AD for not trying to figure out why girls are quitting and then doing something about it..."

This particular coach has been in place for several seasons, and while I have never seen a game, I've heard multiple stores from various basketball parents that this yelling thing is not new - it's been the coach's M.O. all the way. [Although I do wonder if these basketball parents can really be trusted...kind of weird allowing their daughters to play basketball instead of hockey! ] In any case, sooner or later he will leave, probably "because of disgruntled parents". The truth is that he brought issues on himself.

School administrations are like companies that refuse to do market research (in any shape or form), and attribute customer complaints to the consumer, not to the fact that there might be an issue with the product.

At a minimum, there should 100% of the time be follow-up surveys for every parent and player at LEAST at the conclusion of every season. The AD, or his/her designate, should have to go through these surveys and come up with the top 3-5 strengths of the coach, and the top 2-5 issues / opportunities / weaknesses. This information should be provided to the coach in a summary format. The coach and AD should talk the feedback through and, if appropriate, come up with a plan that deals with improving at least one of the opportunities the following season. Feedback solicitation formats should be relatively similar from year to year. This year's results should be compared to previous years results to measure trends. The coaches that consistently rank high should be paid a bonus.

I guarantee that not all parents and players are stupid or unreasonable. I also guarantee that if the admin and coaches listened to the major messages from those they are trying to serve, that the issue of coaches being forced out would dramatically be reduced, to the point where “tenure or not” would be irrelevant.

Coaches who want security should be adamant about getting such feedback from their AD on an annual basis (at least). If the “little issues” are dealt with on a regular basis, the “big issues” often fade away.

[buttercupbell29]

hshockeyfan91 and ghshockeyfan,

You both have very valid points and excellant opinions!! I agree to a lot of what you've both said and find it very interesting when reading from one perspective to the other's. You both have said it very well!!!

My issue with the Int'l Falls coach has more to do with how the administrative is handling his contract. The school board meeting that Tim Mellstrom was to attend on July 17th was a meeting in fact to approve the hire of a total of 23 staff members and coaches. So the assumption was that his contract would be renewed at this meeting. It wasn't until the night before (Sunday at 10:30pm....which is kinda late in my opinion for that type of call) that the Athletic Director called him at home and basically said that he either needed to resign or they were going to fire him/not renew his contract for the 2006/2007 year. So nobody that attended Monday evening's school board meeting was aware of this proposal until the meeting was in place. It was then at the meeting that this proposed addition was added to the agenda. It was a shock to quite a few people and wasn't the right route that the administrative should have gone about in handling this situation. It wasn't in good policy terms you could say.

They did end up tabling the agenda addition....concerning Tim's contract; and now tonight the Falls High School board will meet again and will decide on the renewal or nonrenewal of Tim Mellstrom's coaching contract. I wish him luck!!!

[buttercupbell29]

Okay so Tim Mellstrom didn't succeed in getting his coaching contract back. It's such a shame and I don't agree with how the Falls High school board handleded this at all! Anyone else agree something was a little 'fishy' there and not right?


[b]Falls school board votes not to offer coaching position[/b]
By Laurel Beager, Editor
[i]Tuesday, August 22, 2006[/i]


Despite pleas by students and parents, and questions by coaches, the International Falls school board Monday voted unanimously to accept a recommendation not to contract with the former head girls hockey coach for the coming school year.
T
he board accepted a recommendation not to contract with Tim Mellstrom to serve as head coach of the girls hockey program for the 2006-07 school year. The recommendation came from Falls High School Athletic Director Josh Koenig and Principal Tim Everson.

The action included declaring the position vacant to be filled in accordance with school board policy and a collecting bargaining agreement between the district and a local union.

Mellstrom has coached in the district for seven years.

Following the action Monday, Koenig declined further explanation about the recommendation, saying it was considered a personnel issue and would not be fair to Mellstrom to discuss it.

Mellstrom later told The Journal that he has not been provided with the specific reasons for the recommendation, except to say that staff has said it wants to take a different direction in the program.

"They have yet to call me in and give the reasons they aren't hiring me back," he said outside the Falls High School.

Meanwhile, prior to the board's vote, ninth graders Nadine Meyer and Katie Loop asked the board to reconsider its expected action. The girls, members of the program, said Mellstrom has served as a "wonderful" coach.

"We think we had a winning season," Loop said. "Winning is not just by games, but by team work and effort."

Parent Gary Loop told the board that if the board's decision is based on a win-loss ratio, it should consider the amount of time the girls hockey team gets on the ice. He pointed to the school years since 2002-'03 in which he said the boys team was scheduled for 49 to 94 more hours of ice time each year.

He also wondered whether parents or players had complained about Mellstrom and asked for more explanation of the recommendation.

Others, including coach Charlie Anderson and former coach John Nevanen asked for more information about the recommendation. And some asked if Mellstrom's selection of an assistant coach had played a role in the recommendation and for explanation of what has been termed "a different direction" when discussing the coaching position.

Superintendent Don Langan said he looks at programs in the long term: Where they've been, where they're at and where they're going. In addition, he said mandates, participation, competitiveness and costs are considered when reviewing programs.

Anderson said the loss of Mellstrom and gain of another coach for the position was a wash "and in the process we've upset a lot of people."

[elliott70]

My question is how do they find a replacement at this late hour.
Two months until the girls hit the ice. They will not be hiring a teacher (coach) from the outside at this stage of the game.

Will it be an interim coach?
Will it be a non-teacher? Perhaps Jeff Wickstrom?
Did they have someone (teacher or otherwise) already in mind?

Taking the program in a new direction is one thing, but not having any direction is quite another. And having direction but being hush, hush (under the table) about it, is a bad way for a couple of new people (AD & super) in the community to start.

I hope things turn out well for the girls' sake.

[ghshockeyfan]

My question is how do they find a replacement at this late hour.
Two months until the girls hit the ice. They will not be hiring a teacher (coach) from the outside at this stage of the game.

Will it be an interim coach?
Will it be a non-teacher? Perhaps Jeff Wickstrom?
Did they have someone (teacher or otherwise) already in mind?

Taking the program in a new direction is one thing, but not having any direction is quite another. And having direction but being hush, hush (under the table) about it, is a bad way for a couple of new people (AD & super) in the community to start.

I hope things turn out well for the girls' sake.

They can't release any info. about a replacement until they post the job and follow "legal hiring practices." I've seen other districts get burned by this (as they should) when they do this sort of thing and the replacement info. slips out too soon... Hopefully districts don't make the mistake of telling the coach earlier in the spring/summer that they are bringing him/her back and then change it later... What typically happens is that a district goes after a "big name" that they will never retain long term (but like to think they will), and/or they use such a position to get a teacher in the door at a school (i.e. need a math teacher bad enough, so "open up" the hockey position for the "candidate.") My other favorite is that a couple influential/loud people complained & high admin. reacted without ever having investigated or even met the coach, and only after the fact does the district realize that they just fired a relatively well-liked coach. Another favorite is quote "deciding to go another direction" and then citing the "gender" of the coach as an issue (not a wise move). It can get even more interesting when the coach is young enough to have many years left in coaching put in jeopardy by these situations. Then, add the fact that the coach may not just be doing this at the HS level, but may have experience, as well as future aspirations to pursue it as a full-time occupation, at the collegiate D3 & D1 levels as assistant or head coach. There are also concerns about the media coverage and the impact that can have on the fired coach, as well as statements made verbally & in writing. Sometimes I've seen all these things come together in one scenario - so - who knows...

I'd get some legal advice if I was the coach in this position, but what do I know.

Remember though, it is all about the kids. There is a need to minimize the adverse impact this will have on them. Remember though, this was not initiated by the coach.

[hshockeyfan91]

I still believe feedback is the best way to resolve issues. However, when I hear the way Mellstrom was treated, and some of the stories ghshockeyfan just relayed, I can understand why tenure could be perceived positively. I guess I start from a position of assuming that all parties involved want to treat each other respectfully, but just stumble sometimes. If there are lots of knee jerk and ulterior motive type things going on (and there probably are!), then maybe the coaches do need some protection.

Tenure still scares me though because I can think of a significant MINORITY of teachers who can't teach all all, but are protected by tenure. I don't want the same thing to happen in coaching.

Maybe like a constitutional amendment requires extra steps above and beyond a "typical law" to be passed, I would accept tenure if there was a reasonable and fair way to dismiss (if it came to that) coaches who really truly were weak.

[Rocketwrister]

This is a sad situation!! I can't believe what has taken place by the administration.

My $2.00 bet on this situation is the new AD will hire someone from Warroad (a friend) and get "his guys" in the girls hockey program. Very, very sad.

[buttercupbell29]

Actually the school did hire a new phyed teacher for this year and he's from Warroad with hockey experience under his belt. Rumor is...he may be the one offered the posistion. So I'm assuming the school board already had someone in mind a long time ago to be getting rid of Mellstrom on such last minute like they did.

Again what a shame in the way the administration handleded Tim Mellstrom's contract. If you're going to get rid of someone the LEAST you can do is give facts or reasons why and not be all secretative about it and try to keep it hush, hush. Or worse yet...having the athletic director saying that it's considered a personnel issue and would not be fair to Mellstrom to discuss it. WHAT IS THAT?

I just hope for the sake of the girls that the program does alright this coming season. I would think it would be hard for Mellstrom to watch this season; especially if the program takes a nose-dive under the new coaching.

[ghshockeyfan]

If you're going to get rid of someone the LEAST you can do is give facts or reasons why and not be all secretative about it and try to keep it hush, hush. Or worse yet...having the athletic director saying that it's considered a personnel issue and would not be fair to Mellstrom to discuss it. WHAT IS THAT?

I would strongly suggest that everyone involved refrain from giving rationale for this decision if it could be viewed as potentially untruthful & subsequently harmful (the discussion I mean) to the coach. I would also advise parents, etc. that may want to discuss this openly with others to not gossip (stick to the facts if anything), and the same has to be true for everyone involved else there can be legal issues moving forward. I also hope that those that complained to admin. & others were entirely 100% factual and didn't embellish anything that was said as if this is what led to (or played any part in) the current situation that can also be problematic for them and district moving forward. There is free speech & right to complain about legitimate factual issues, but no one has the right to defame anyone wrongly.

I just hope for the sake of the girls that the program does alright this coming season. I would think it would be hard for Mellstrom to watch this season; especially if the program takes a nose-dive under the new coaching.

This is hard, and don't hold it against the next coach if the program doesn't start off strong. A team can have all the talent in the world, even more & stronger new players than the year prior, in addition to a more mature & developed returning class, and they can still do worse due more to adaptation to a new situation. This is even more problematic when the kids are upset by things. They then have to work through those hard feelings and also learn to adapt to a new coach. If the new coach has a solid coaching background and isn't new to the head role, then the team will be better off, but it will take time. Also problematic is if the former coach was a longtime coach vs. just a couple years. A clean break without all this baggage is still tough, but add this sort of thing to the equation and it just makes things worse.

I wish the program, the prior coach, the new coach, but most importantly the PLAYERS, the best of luck.

[ghshockeyfan]

I still believe feedback is the best way to resolve issues. However, when I hear the way Mellstrom was treated, and some of the stories ghshockeyfan just relayed, I can understand why tenure could be perceived positively. I guess I start from a position of assuming that all parties involved want to treat each other respectfully, but just stumble sometimes. If there are lots of knee jerk and ulterior motive type things going on (and there probably are!), then maybe the coaches do need some protection.

Tenure still scares me though because I can think of a significant MINORITY of teachers who can't teach all all, but are protected by tenure. I don't want the same thing to happen in coaching.

Maybe like a constitutional amendment requires extra steps above and beyond a "typical law" to be passed, I would accept tenure if there was a reasonable and fair way to dismiss (if it came to that) coaches who really truly were weak.

I agree with you about this. I totally understand the hang-up on the "tenure" idea. Maybe a coaching "union" is more the answer. I'm not a labor relations person, but know enough to know that this all is wrong from my own limited experiences & things I've seen so far.

The issue for most with coaching "tenure" isn't the concept, but instead the connotation of the term. It's so negatively viewed (the term) that no one is quick to support it (the concept) in terms of coaching. If you could separate the two, the term/its general negative connotation from the concept, I think there would be support in general.

I agree that there still needs to be a way to remove poor coaches & also a probationary period prior to "tenure," but the current way of protecting none of the good ones isn't right. Coaches that stand up for their entire program & its players and don't let certain influential parents tell them what to do, or those that maybe even fight their own admin at times for equity shouldn't be so easy to remove. THEY ARE DOING THEIR JOB & DOING IT WELL!!!

I think that we think that someone who gets “tenure” will just have the right to stop working. We have to keep in mind though that coaching has a prerequisite of being extremely passionate and working for little pay. Do we really truly believe that these are the type of people that are going to regularly stop working once they achieve tenure in their low-paying coaching position? Maybe a small few, but the vast majority aren’t going to abuse such a set-up, and instead we would likely get even more in return from these dedicated people once they see that even more hard work is worth it (i.e. getting to see things through to fruition).

[elliott70]

Well, whatever happens good luck to the Broncos!