Is coaching two school teams in the same league unethical?
August 24, 2016 9:34 AM   Subscribe

If school teams are competing against each other in a league, is it unethical for a coach to be training teams from two schools within the league? Assume that both school managements are aware of the double commitment. There is a real possibility that the two teams will go up against each other head to head. I'm looking for help in thinking through the ethical reasoning, as an organization I'm involved in is trying to develop an official position on this.
posted by bardophile to Education (16 answers total)
 
This seems like a textbook case of conflict of interest.
posted by bq at 9:35 AM on August 24, 2016 [2 favorites]


Who coaches the teams when they play each other?
posted by andoatnp at 9:36 AM on August 24, 2016 [3 favorites]


I think it depends pretty heavily on the sport... my answer is different for, say, track - where I think a coach can excellently coach all members of each team - versus, say, football - where deep knowledge of the opposing team's plays gives you a real serious advantage. Therefore if you have to have a blanket policy, I would say don't do it.
posted by brainmouse at 9:41 AM on August 24, 2016 [13 favorites]


At a minimum, that coach shouldn't attend any game where the two teams are competing against each other, and let the assistant coaches handle those games.
posted by JimN2TAW at 9:41 AM on August 24, 2016 [1 favorite]


Whats the role of the coach? Are these team sports (Soccer, baseball etc) or individual sports with a team component? (swimming, track, tennis).


I'm okay with most coaches for individual sports coaching for different schools heck for swimming a lot of kids end up training mostly with their age-group teams which is cross school anyway.

I'm also okay with certain positions on teams sports - say for example a strength and conditioning coach for football.

But anything involved in strategy of how the two teams play is probably a conflict.
posted by bitdamaged at 9:44 AM on August 24, 2016 [1 favorite]


I think it can be a significant conflict of interest. Narrowly, as pointed out above, there are sports where a team's performance involves a strategic aspect and it's an obvious conflict of interest to have that confidential knowledge be shared.

More broadly, a coach ought to be invested in his/her team winning. I think it would both look bad and feel bad for school athletes to feel like their coach would just as soon have another team win. This is true both for the folks who are just playing for fun, and even more so for the occasional kid whose school sports are important to their identity and/or scholarship goals.
posted by fingersandtoes at 9:46 AM on August 24, 2016 [2 favorites]


Don't worry about ethics, worry about conflict of interest. That is easier to define, and this is clearly a literal conflict, assuming we are talking about a sport where two teams can't play each other and both win.

In some organizations, conflicts of interest must be resolved somehow. In others, clear acknowledgment of said conflict is seen as an ameliorating action. Usually this comes with some sort of statement about how the conflict will be minimized, managed, or is actually not that relevant.

Your organization gets to decide which type it is, but most people I think would consider persistent and unacknowledged COI to be unethical behavior for an organization.

The Wikipedia page on COI has a nice section on mitigation that goes into more detail on the most common options.
posted by SaltySalticid at 9:49 AM on August 24, 2016


Response by poster: Hmm. I knew I hit post too quickly.

We're talking about debate teams. The format of most tournaments is such that the coach is prohibited from having a role when a match is in progress. However, when a debate round is on a preannounced topic (about 1 in 4 would be) the coach would do a lot of work with the team on case preparation. The odds of the two teams in question going up against each other in a prepared round are obviously quite a bit lower than meeting up for an impromptu round. But it can be an advantage to know the strengths and weaknesses of speakers on the opposing team.

My organization arranges tournaments. We aren't in the US or the developed world. The concern here is not a legal one; any official position we took would be more advisory than binding.

I'm personally in the "this is an obvious conflict of interest" camp, but would like to either more fully flesh out that point of view or be persuaded that my instinctive response is incorrect.
posted by bardophile at 10:01 AM on August 24, 2016


However, when a debate round is on a preannounced topic (about 1 in 4 would be) the coach would do a lot of work with the team on case preparation. The odds of the two teams in question going up against each other in a prepared round are obviously quite a bit lower than meeting up for an impromptu round. But it can be an advantage to know the strengths and weaknesses of speakers on the opposing team.

So someone coaching both teams would have intimate knowledge of what each team had prepared for these pre-announced topics? That's effectively a situation where the coach would "know the other team's playbook", and opens the door for favoritism (conscious or unconscious.) For example, suppose Team A has prepared a really good rhetorical argument, and that argument simply doesn't occur to Team B. Does the coach mention this argument to Team B so they can prepare a rebuttal?
posted by Johnny Assay at 10:10 AM on August 24, 2016 [9 favorites]


I am an assistant debate coach.

This is unethical.

I do NOT coach other schools' students during the school year. Our district has a policy that after our schools are DONE competing against each other for the year, we can all coach/research/practice together, and we do, but for a very short post-season.
posted by Ms Vegetable at 10:14 AM on August 24, 2016 [5 favorites]


Yeah, there's too much of a chance of a direct conflict of interest. I don't know what the debate season looks like, but if this were a team-sport (football, basketball, etc.) situation, which seems most analogous, I would say you could maaaybe let the person coach up until a week or so before competition starts, and then step back.
posted by Etrigan at 10:14 AM on August 24, 2016 [1 favorite]


Although in general I have some major concerns about this if only for the appearance of a conflict, I would say that one of the considerations should be what the goal of being on the team is. Is the goal of a school debate team to win or is it to teach the participants to be good debaters with the actual debates just a place for them to practice. I get that they keep score for a reason, but I compare it to some of my area high school sports teams which are not always competitive on the field, but they have large turnouts because of the way the coach works with them in practice.

What do the winners of the debates get? Trophy? Cash for the district? An "attaboy"? To me, as the stakes get higher, this is more of a conflict than it would be with say a middle school debate team.

I would also consider if there was a scarcity of debate coaches in your area. If there is a dearth of coaches, even if it may be a conflict, is it better to give the debaters pointers or advice than it is to leave them with nothing just to avoid the conflict?

I have not had a chance to think it all the way through, but while I believe there should be some policy or recognition of the potential conflict of interest, having an absolute policy seems like it may box you into a place that could be not in the best interests of the students assuming these are student debaters.
posted by AugustWest at 10:26 AM on August 24, 2016


Former debater here.

Its not uncommon (or it wasn't in my experience) for an individual to provide coaching to more than one team, but circumstances should dictate whether it should be done. I knew people who coached at underprivileged schools on the side who were paid by more affluent schools as well - this seemed fine since there was little chance of a conflict; in the examples im thinking about there were separate local tournaments (urban debate leagues etc) that the pricey schools' students were unlikely to compete in.

Coaching for hire is/was definitely a thing (especially at the college level where smaller schools had trouble fulfilling judging requirements and plenty of mercenaries were willing to shop around their availability to judge as well as on the spot coaching).

Plus teams from the same schools do occasionally meet in elimination rounds and depending on the tournament rules/coaches decision in some cases they do directly compete (in other cases ive seen higher seeded teams get the walk over, and I think once saw where the lower seeded team was comprised of seniors and they were advanced over their younger but lower seeded team-mates).

It would strongly depend on whether this would be an exclusive head coaching arrangement or not. For day-of/tournament coaching, how would you prioritize preparing one schools' team over the other? having this all laid out ahead of time would make me more comfortable with it. if the arrangement said you were to conduct a couple practices per week at each school and alternate who you helped on a per tournament basis (or that you would only assist one school at tournaments and the other would have to bring in additional coaching) at least it would all be laid out.
posted by Exceptional_Hubris at 10:46 AM on August 24, 2016 [1 favorite]


You flesh out the stance that this is COI by constructing a clear example showing that what is good for team A is bad for team B, and hence one person cannot perform coaching for both teams while avoiding all potential COI. It seems to me that has been done sufficiently well by others. Given your follow up, it seems likely that if the one person can't coach both teams, then one team will have no coach, or only less qualified coaches. If that's not the case now, it may well be soon.

I think it would be fine, and to the greater good, to tolerate this kind of COI, with official organizational policies on disclosure. If you google /disclose conflict of interest/ you will find forms and policies from various legal, medical, and publishing organizations that may help you in writing this up for your purposes. The idea is to advise against COI whenever possible, but acknowledge some COI can be tolerated for the sake of the greater good, and that disclosing Potential COI makes things more ethical for all involved.
posted by SaltySalticid at 11:14 AM on August 24, 2016 [1 favorite]


I'm sorry, but it doesn't matter what kind of team they are --- debate, sports, boardgame, whatever --- this is, yes: unethical.

You could coach two teams in two different disciplines, say one debate team and one D&D, or even one Little League baseball team and one high school varsity baseball team; but anytime there's a possibility of the same coach's two teams competing against each other there is conflict, and that means that even if you wouldn't be an on-field coach (if you'd train them and then stay home from the competition itself) there is still at least the appearance of a probable bias. So, unethical and a conflict of interest.
posted by easily confused at 11:26 AM on August 24, 2016


I think in an "ideal" world this is a conflict of interest, but it also depends on the reasons why people are considering doubling up on coaching. If someone wants to coach two schools just for kicks, I'd say the ethical concern means you should tell them no. If this is a situation where a school might have to go with no debate team at all or have to try and debate with no coach, I'd be more willing to bend on it because that way more kids get the debating experience.
posted by rainbowbrite at 6:22 PM on August 24, 2016 [2 favorites]


« Older ebooks with no credit card and other snowflakes   |   I'm no fun anymore Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.