Here is an article I found on the web...One of Many on this topic on this site
I guess what my concern is, Proper Parenting through Sport and society, as opposed to developing athletes or elite leagues. I know it is long but interesting read, may be best to print..
From
http://www.sportsparenting.org/csp/index.cfm Title: Purpose of High School Sports Revisited
Author: Ramocki, Stephen P.
The intent and purpose of public high school interscholastic athletics is an important topic, having been debated and philosophized, with periodic apparent resolution, for probably a century in this country. However, there is evidence that it would behoove us to revisit the concept from time to time to ensure that the accepted model is in fact being successfully implemented. As with any successful organization, the ultimate responsibility lies within the administration and the policy-makers. However, the practical success of the policies obviously rests with the coaches. I would like to revisit several embryonic, crucial philosophies (with supporting knowledge) which, if implemented, result in successful athletic programs. They are: (1) The main function of high school athletics is to serve as an extension of the classroom, where students continue their individual developments within athletic domains. (2) Every player deserves to be treated fairly and humanely while receiving significant playing time in actual games. (3) Human beings mature at varying rates and their athletic potentials, especially in the early teens, remain essentially unknown. (4) The professional model of athletics, with emphasis basically upon winning, has perhaps only a limited place in public high school athletics.
In reference to number 1, the potential benefits of high school athletics have been clearly established as well as documented. As examples, the May 5, 1999 issue of Education Week reported that the more involved students were in athletics, the more confident they were of their academic abilities and/or the more engaged they were with their schools. Another study demonstrated fewer behavioral problems among athletes. Furthermore, athletes tend to have better attendance, higher academic achievement, and higher aspirations compared to non-participants. Research conducted by Maureen Weiss and colleagues at the University of Oregon demonstrates that self-esteem and perception of physical ability generated through athletics are predictive of achievement behavior, motivation, and positive affect (American Psychological Association, 1996). Sports lift esteem in young athletes (
http://www.helping.apa.org/family/prepare/html). In more than 60 studies at the University of Oregon, results consistently demonstrate that self-esteem and perceptions of physical abilities are predictive of achievement, motivations, and positive feelings. Additionally, non-participants are 57% more likely to drop out of school, 49% more likely to use drugs, 37% more likely to be teen parents, 35% more likely to smoke cigarettes, and 27% more likely to have been arrested (
http://www.nationalforum.com/whitlyaer10e3.html). A main thread contained in all these studies is that participation in athletics enhances the student's self-concept, which also leads to other desirable ends. Thus, a very fair conclusion is that high school athletics are in fact serving a valuable function when student athletes' self-concepts are in fact positively affected within the entire process.
Regarding number 2, the only way a student athlete's self-concept can be enhanced is through humane and equitable treatment by the coaching staff. Coaches must think of themselves as teachers first, setting aside egotistical notions that they are the masters of their courts and playing fields and will soon be receiving a call to coach at the collegiate level or higher. The problem of attracting qualified coaches aside, successful coaches must view their vocations as a calling - a calling to assist young athletes develop their potentials. Although the win-loss record is most tangible, it has little to do with the far more important goal (which is far less immediately tangible) of developing athletic potential and enhancing the athlete's self-concept. (J. Coakley - The Coaching Role in Modern Sport) (
http://www2.tamucc.edu/~kinweb/5310/4sch.html). The only way to achieve this is to ensure that all the team's members receive ample playing time in actual game situations. This does not mean waiting until the score is lopsided one way or the other before granting some playing time. If the major goal of self-concept is to be achieved the coach must demonstrate faith in a player to perform in the critical situations as well. It is only within this philosophy that the proper character and confidence can be established. It is also the coach's responsibility to share these goals with the entire team and to ensure that everyone is on the same page in this regard. There will, of course, be spectators and (unfortunately) parents who will disagree with this philosophy, but that is precisely why the successful coach must be a teacher who has an understanding of the powerful psychological elements swarming in his/her midst. Amongst the conclusions that Mancini, Wuest, and Norton tersely stated in a 1998 study conducted at Ithaca College is simply that as a coach, "You have to remember that you have the power to make or break their day...and that's scary...that you have that power." For anyone with any knowledge of psychology, the realization of the profound role that a coach plays in this entire process cannot be overstated ("A systematic Perspective of Humanistic Behaviors in Coaching." 2001). In Sport in the Twenty-First Century, Lombardo, Caravella-Nadeau, Castagno, Mancini eds. Pearson Custom Publishing Boston.)
Given the less tangible main goal of developing students' characters, self-concepts, as well as athletic potentials (as contrasted to the more tangible goal of winning), how then is the successful coach to know that the job is being accomplished? Ron Belinko, who is the Athletic Coordinator for Baltimore County Public Schools in Towson, Maryland, has developed a simple and effective method to evaluate his coaches' performances. The appraisal process includes three major events: preparing and establishing performance expectations, training the coaches, and assessing the results of the performances ("Evaluation and Dismissal of Coaches," 2000 Conference Proceedings of the National Interscholastic Administrators' Association; San Diego). At the end of the season, all head coaches are evaluated by the athletic director. Assistant coaches are evaluated by a team comprised of the athletic director, along with the respective head coaches. These evaluations are filed in the athletic director's office, the school office, and the office of athletics. The overall ratings range from definite weaknesses displayed/standards are not being met, to good/standards are consistently exceeded as described in the various competencies. Each coach is then placed in one of three categories: satisfactory, meaning the coach should be retained; probationary, meaning that the coach will be recommended for reassignment if agreement can be reached in areas where improvements are needed; and unsatisfactory, meaning the coach will not be recommended for reassignment. This ensures that their public school system has a quality athletic program for all the reasons previously mentioned.
Regarding number 3, a good place to start is with a 1990n study conducted by the Sports Goods Manufacturers' Assocation, that surveyed 10,000 student-athletes. The study revealed that the number one reason girls and boys participate in high school sports is to have fun. Consistently, not having fun was the number one reason they dropped out of athletics. Winning was not viewed as important, being ranked #8 by boys and #12 by girls. Skill development was perceived to be a crucial aspect of fun, being considered more important than winning even among the best athletes. It is intuitively obvious that team members cannot have fun and continue to develop their skills unless they receive plenty of playing time in real game situations. Armed with the above knowledge, it makes as much sense to keep a player on the bench as it does not to let him/her take an exam because s/he is not yet up to par in a course. This is all an important part of the process of becoming and self-development, whether we are talking about the classroom or its extension onto the playing fields. Some tests are given in the domain of the classroom; others are given on the courts or fields; but their purposes are largely the same - to enable students to develop and improve their skills, knowledge, and self-esteems in those environments. Each and every team member should be given ample opportunity to engage in these competitive tests, regardless of the outcome of the games. (This is indisputable at the freshman and junior varsity levels. The next section will briefly discuss a possible shift in philosophy at the varsity level.)
Coaches should know something about human development. People mature, physically and mentally, at different rates. This obviously has been known for a long time. Many coaches think they can predict an athlete's potential in the early teens. They cannot without committing significant errors. Sure, they can see who has progressed to a more skillful level at that point in time; but many mistakes will be made if a coach concludes that the athlete's potential has been reached at that stage. This perspective is somewhat like giving a child a reading test to see if s/he can read. That does not measure potential; it measures achievement. Developers of intelligence and achievement tests have known this for a long time, and it is very analogous to the athletic scenario being addressed here. What one sees is not necessarily what one will get, unless it becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy as a result of granting the initial higher achievers the brunt of the playing time. If that is done, naturally those with the head-start will shine. However, that shortsighted, winning-based strategy, will be a big loser in both the short and longer runs, considering what our athletic programs are supposed to be accomplishing. Many student-athletes who have been cast aside by coaches because of immaturity have gone on to be successful athletes, even in college and professional sports, once they matured. One of the classic cases was Michael Jordan, who was cut from his high school team. However, these will be in the distinct minority, as most early underachievers not given equitable, humanistic treatment, are liable to quit the team never to be heard from again. This totaly defeats the goal of high school athletics and we must take every measure to ensure it does not occur. (see Every Kid Can Win. 1975; Terry Orlick and Cal Botterill. Nelson-Hall, Chicago).
Turning attention to number 4, the accepted model of interscholastic sport had (supposedly) arrived some time ago as one of humanistic and empathetic concern for the participants. The coach must involve all the athletes in meaningful ways, with total awareness of how the players feel, subjectively, to play on the team and be led by him/her (Lombardo (1987). The Humanistic Coach. Charles C. Thomas; Springfield, Il pp.49,61). The professional model of coaching, which places winning as the top goal, has virtually no place in the twenty-first century. This model essentially places the coach's needs up front, although there is much rationalization that can somewhat conceal this underlying philosophy. The humanistic model of coaching, with its emphasis on the uniqueness of each participant in a process-oriented and athlete-centered manner, is the only acceptable one in today's high school athletic programs. According to the humanistic model, coaches must not assume that their goals are identical to those of the participants. Research has demonstrated that all too frequently there is conflict between the goals of the athletic leader and those of the performers. Insisting upon an evaluation process which favors the athlete's subjective experience, and rejecting the temptation to rely upon group standards and performances, coaches can ensure that the individual's subjective encounter with the sport is preserved which will become the basis for individual growth and development. Again, it simply is the athlete's imvolvement and positive regard, which should remain the primary concern of the humanistic coach. Humanistic coaches never forget what it was like to be an athlete, although they often have to forget the role models who preceded them. Too many coaches still coach their teams the way they were coached, relying upon their personal, very unscientific, experiences. Even coaches who come from degreed programs in physical education have received far too little training in the art of coaching. In this regard, the professional preparative institutions perhaps must share some of the blame (Lombardo, Bennett. "Humanistic Coaching: A Model for the New Century" and "Changing Sport:The Role of Professional Preparation Programs" (2001). In Sport in the Twenty-First Century; Lombardo, Caravella-Nadeau, Castagno, Mancini eds. Pearson Custom Publishing, Boston).
Is there, then, no room for the winning mentality in high school athletics? Yes, there is; but it has to be artfully crafted and carefully thought out with total regard to what has previously been discussed. Clearly, athletic competitions are not engaged in attempt to lose. Competition implies exactly that - namely to out-think and out-maneuver an opponent. However, it is the process and all the profound psychological and educational implications that surround the secondary school athletic arena that must simultaneously be considered with this athletic competition. There should be no debate that the humanistic model of coaching should be dominant in all secondary school sports, and up through the junior varsity levels the all too typical winning philosophies should be scrapped in favor of development of athletic potential. At the varsity level, it may be reasonable to place increased emphasis upon winning. If this is the case, it likely will mean that a good portion of the team is destined to put a lid upon its further development and self-efficacy, which results from significant engagement in meaningful contests. This is something, however, which should be carefully decided by the school system, and expressly communicated (along with appropriate rationale), to all those involved e.g. student athletes and parents. It is poor management to come to policy decisions through inaction, osmosis, or by sticking one's head in the sand and hoping that things coast along and everyone has reason to be happy. As discussed and strongly implied in much of the above, the domain of high school athletics plays profound roles in students' lives, and it must be attended with all the wisdom and concern given to academic and other extracurricular activities within the school system's purview.
I will end with a question. If we could accurately measure the overall effectiveness of our athletic programs, given the many profound and relatively intangible concepts involved, would we likely end up in the positive, neutral, or negative zone? If we objectively conclude that we are in the positive zone, then we still must ask if it is possible to make our programs better for all involved.
Stephen P. Ramocki is a Professor of Marketing at Rhode Island College. The above article was published in the January 2002 issue of the Rhode Island Interscholastic League Monthly Bulletin.