I previously argued that participation in a high school volleyball team is best seen as a means by which meaningful ideas, principles, and habits can be cultivated through learning the game, competing, and navigating interpersonal relationships.
I understand that this is debatable and somewhat subjective, so I think it's essential to provide some further explanation. First, I will explain how I came to suspect this idea and then discuss some of the pros and cons that are immediately apparent.
Why do I think this is true?
Every season, I have players on the team who stand out. Sometimes they stand out because of cumulative performance, and other times their growth just outpaces everyone else. I suspect I'm not the only coach who does this, but sometimes I can't help thinking about how good my team would be if I had several more players like that one each year. It seems evident that a team with more good players or players who improve quickly would be better. However, I think there's something else worth discussing when you dig a little deeper.
These players typically share more in common than just their skill or speed of growth. Some of those potential similarities may include similar attitudes, family background, academic performance, social tendencies, and personal habits. So while there isn't a set formula, there are identifiable patterns. It's also worth mentioning that contrary patterns seem to correlate with very talented players who fail to perform or demonstrate relatively underwhelming growth over four years.
What is there to learn from this? Typically, when we think about what it would be like if we could multiply a player, our focus is on how good the player is. In other words, we simply observe that the best players are the best players. Nothing to see there. That is merely describing what about their play makes them the best. However, there's a more interesting question beneath the surface. Why are the best players the best players, and how did they become so? The best players are the best players BY DEFINITION, but being the best isn't the CAUSE of their being the best. The best players BECOME the best through a process. They have to be something else first, and that something else is not just tall, talented, or experienced. That "something else" is very important to uncover and understand.
At this point, we aren't talking about absolute performance but someone's ability to tap into their potential. One might look at the general landscape of high school volleyball and point out that competition almost always comes down to size, talent, and experience. Doesn't that disprove what I am saying? I would argue that these exceptional individuals are rare enough (that's what makes them unique) that everything usually boils down to size, talent, and experience anyway. That's why coaches wish they had several more of "that kid." Unfortunately, you don't usually have enough of them to outweigh the other factors.
As I hinted at earlier, these special players typically possess qualities like being more disciplined, more optimistic, more focused, more resilient, and harder working than their peers. They think a certain way, operate according to deeply engrained principles and possess strong habits. These aren't just the good players. These are the "pre-good" players. If these qualities can be cultivated with even a moderate degree of success across a team, what results is a "pre-good" hot spot. With time, that means a much higher likelihood of better players and better teams. At worst, it means fewer headaches while coaching. I can live with that.
The explanation is a lot simpler than the execution. Just because I think it might work in theory doesn't mean it's worth the effort it takes to implement something. Further consideration of the pros and cons makes sense here. It's important to remember that volleyball is not being replaced as the core driving activity.
Pros:
A focus on character development is an upstream solution. It tackles problems early in the assembly line. That means several later steps in the process stand to benefit or improve. It could include issues we aren't even aware of or don't know how to fix.
A focus on character development generates more overall value for everyone involved. Even though a volleyball team has volleyball as its core activity, it takes real time and real energy. It also takes away from other real things a person can invest in. That's why a spot on the team ought to provide real value for everyone involved intentionally. This is something parents should be able to support, and it should be helpful to players long after they graduate. Opponents, referees, school staff, and players' peers should benefit in the margins. We could just settle for having fun and making some friends, but there are so many ways to do it that are less costly. Plus, if something suddenly resonates with a player after they graduate, it will still pay dividends. I think a volleyball awakening at 40 years old has limited utility.
Character development targets something that can really be changed. This doesn't mean it's easy, but it does mean you aren't venturing blindly into the unknown. You don't actually know how good a player is going to be. You don't know if a player will get injured and miss the season or if convincing the parents to spend thousands of dollars on club volleyball is really in the student's best interest. You can't even be sure what difference putting in extra hours will make. At the very least, character cultivation, when done well and done appropriately, is for the best. If it's going to benefit volleyball also, it seems like a better bet than ignoring it or making it secondary.
Some risks and concerns:
Character development is challenging. It's hard enough to do with your own children. Working with a group of 12-18 teenagers for two to three hours at a time for a few months out of the year doesn't make things any easier. It's good to do important hard things, but the cost must be weighed against the benefits and the probability of success.
Character cultivation is a good project in theory. However, because it's so difficult, a coach has to consider what a failed outcome could look like. Character takes time to develop, and it requires sacrifice. If it does not go well, a team is probably better off with a pure volleyball focus.
Every team forms a different audience variation. Even if character development makes sense, a coach has to make it make sense to the group that is there. If not, you end up with no buy-in and movement in different directions. A coach has to exercise sensitivity and discernment in winning over the team.
Teachers and coaches tend to be idealistic and ideologically driven individuals. The nature of the work also lends itself to parental instincts and tendencies. In fact, if we believe that education is grounded in objective truth, then we are literally indoctrinating young people on the topics we find most important. We don't honestly expect them to think critically about every single little thing. This is why character development can be a touchy or even dangerous subject. Our ideals should serve as a foundation, but they grow to become soapboxes, and our soapboxes grow to become our pedestals and our thrones. Our students and players are not our subjects, they are individuals, and they are someone else's children. Pride comes before the fall, and parents should rightfully defend their borders from overzealous educators. Improperly drawn boundaries are a considerable risk here.
I think I've laid out plenty to consider here. However, one more important question needs to be addressed on its own.
Comentarios