resources

January 4 2017

External Factors to Consider

Model

External Factors to Consider

Coaches, administrators, and directors noted several external factors that may moderate the effectiveness of parent involvement, policy implementation, or educational programming. The following eight external barrier themes were discussed as having the most impact on the parent involvement in the context of intercollegiate athletics:

Family location.

The physical, geographic distance between player and parent seems to have a significant impact on the level of parent involvement. According to coaches, administrators, and parents, this factor impacts not only parents’ abilities to attend athletic contests, but also the level of in-person contact between parent and student-athlete. One head coach (men’s tennis), comparing international athletes to athletes from the United States noted this barrier:

American parents, because they are closer and they visit more, they will once in a while be calling and seeing what is going on. So those differences make the dynamic a little different.

It was a common emerging theme that the farther away an athlete’s parents physically are, the less prevalent communication was within the parent/child relationship.

Generation.

A second external factor relates to the perceived generation gap that exists between some parents and their student-athletes. Despite this, key NCAA stakeholders noted that technology and social media have made the gap much narrower as parents can now readily keep up with their student-athletes. This constant access, while providing an opportunity for closeness, can also be to the detriment of the student-athlete. As a female head coach (women’s softball) expressed:

I think that with cell phones and technology they’re almost too involved – to a fault – because the kid is not able to grow up and experience some things.

Competitiveness.

Another external factor noted by key stakeholders across NCAA Divisions was the level of parent competitiveness. Specifically, coaches and administrators discussed how competitiveness between parents impacts their involvement styles. According to these individuals, this factor has been accentuated recently by the visibility of intercollegiate athletics and athletes in popular press. As note by a male administrator:

The stakes are higher and as the stakes become higher as you move up; the number of patrons that are watching, the roles that the intercollegiate program plays all affect it… I think the parents play into that, the higher the stress, the more the parents want to see their kid succeed and the more they probably will find themselves getting involved. Unfortunately, selfishly, some parents want to live through their kids. The kids can sense that and I feel that it happens more frequently at the Division I level than they would at the others.

Class in school.

According to key stakeholders, the student-athlete’s class in school has a big influence on parent involvement and the potential impact of parent educational programming. The consensus seemed to be among stakeholders that older student-athletes (i.e., juniors and seniors) seek less communication with their parents simply because they have made more progress toward adulthood. As discussed by a male head coach (track and field):

The interaction differs from when you’re recruiting and it also differs from how long they have been here. Someone who’s a freshman, I might communicate with the parent a lot more than someone who is a senior. For two reasons: they don’t need the information because the kid should learn how to do those things, and the older the student gets, the less they want the parent involved.

However, It is not just communication between parents and student-athletes that changes over time, but communication between parents and coaches as well. The reasons coaches gave for this in interviews ranged from parents “learning to let go” to “coaches just wanting to deal with athletes” as the child progresses on the team.

Student-athlete gender.

Coaches and administrators also discussed student-athlete gender as an external factor that may impact the parent involvement and/or effectiveness of parent education. As discussed by a female administrator:

For the most part, a general statement, but male athlete parents are less involved in the standpoint of communication with administration and coaches. They allow their student-athlete to really do more of the communication. Where female student-athlete parents are really more involved in sharing their opinions with administration and coaches and/or speaking for their student-athlete instead of having their kid talk for themselves.

Key NCAA stakeholders noted that parents of female student-athletes seem to be more vocal with coaches. Additionally, participants discussed ways in which student-athletes handle parents’ negative involvement. Specifically, these individuals noted that female athletes are more likely to internalize the negativity, whereas male athletes are more likely to externalize.

Family dynamics.

According to key NCAA stakeholders, all families have an established dynamic when the student-athlete arrives at college. This dynamic takes a while to evolve and adapt to the new setting of intercollegiate athletics, which often impacts the quality and quantity of parent involvement. As shared by a male head coach (women’s soccer):

I do believe that it’s probably a continuum of what has been going on in that student-athlete’s life coming through their high school ages, junior high school, and their high school ages probably for the most part. So I don’t see that dramatically changing … so I think the interaction and the tie that parents have with their student-athlete makes a big difference into the experiences that those student-athletes receive, positively and negatively.

Because no family dynamic is the same, stakeholders recognized that each student-athlete’s transition to college is experienced differently and that parent education must not be a one-size-fits-all recipe.

Sport culture.

One external factor that coaches, administrators, and parents felt impacted parent involvement and student-athlete experiences is the sport culture. These stakeholders agreed that parent educational programming could be generalized to all intercollegiate sports, but also felt that specific aspects of the program would need to be tailored to specific sport needs. As a male head coach (men’s wrestling) stated:

I honestly believe that every sport is different. They have their own little tendencies. Not always, but (different sports) can be different, so I think you have to tailor (parent education) a little bit.

Parenting culture.

Parenting culture is another external factor that plays a role in parent involvement. Indeed, coaches, administrators, and parents all agreed that the current parenting culture in sport is that of a helicopter parent. A male head coach (men’s football) said, “It’s out of control,” when talking about the current sport parenting culture in intercollegiate athletics. It is a difficult change for both student-athletes and parents when an child begins their collegiate career. As one female head coach (women’s softball) summed it up:

I think just the entitlement and the ‘I want it now, I want it yesterday,’ idea has taken over. I think this generation (of parents) has everything at their fingertips. They have to be connected all the time … (Parents) want to go out and buy the fix, (but) we need to educate them that you have to try and try and try and part of learning is failing and it’s ok to struggle and it’s ok to fail … I think (in) this generation we give everybody a trophy for just participating, and parents are used to that.

January 4 2017

Positive Parent Involvement

Model

Positive Parent Involvement

The primary goal of evidence-based parent education is to promote positive parent involvement. Coaches, administrators, and directors shared two distinct themes of positive parent involvement in intercollegiate athletics:

Appropriate support.

Key NCAA stakeholders described appropriate support as fostering student-athletes’ independence, facilitating the mission of the coaching staff and team, and being present to advocate for the student-athlete when necessary. A male head coach (men’s golf) noted that appropriate support occurs when a parent

…gives quality encouragement, support, and unconditional love for their child, regardless of their rate of achievement.

Coaches, administrators, and parents all suggested that parents who offer appropriate support help their children foster intrinsic satisfaction for their sport performance over the course of their intercollegiate careers. Moreover, appropriate parent support was described as integral for creating a positive dynamic between parents and the coaching staff, as well as between parents and NCAA student-athletes.

Facilitative involvement.

Coaches and administrators spoke unabashedly about the positive impact on athletes and teams when parents facilitate, rather than direct, their student-athletes’ athletic participation. Quite simply, key NCAA stakeholders noted the distinct positive outcomes associated with parents who facilitate growth and independence in their student-athletes. According to key stakeholders, this pattern of involvement occurred most regularly when coaches communicated frequently with parents about how to help their children while maintaining enough space that coaches could do their jobs effectively. As a male head coach (women’s soccer) stated:

Somewhere along the lines your child is going to have a very difficult time, and you’re not going to be there … They’re going to reach out to you and let you know that (being a student-athlete) is difficult. You have to be the person to support them, listen to them, and at the same time say, ‘You have to learn to deal with it. That’s essential. That’s the challenge, and that’s what facilitates growth.’

June 22 2016

Barriers to Positive Parent Involvement

Model

Barriers to Positive Parent Involvement

Despite the potential for parent educational programming to facilitate positive parent involvement, coaches, administrators, and directors discussed a number of possible barriers that would have to be overcome to achieve this end. Specifically, these barriers fell into three themes:

Appropriate voice.

Key NCAA stakeholders acknowledged that the appropriate presentation of educational materials would be key for the implementation to be successful. Indeed, more important than the actual content of the presentation, participants described the person or “voice” behind the information as being of utmost significance. Despite this, stakeholders had wide-ranging opinions in terms of who would be the best voice to implement parent educational programming. A number of coaches felt that it should come from athletic administrators at the university who are charged with protecting student-athlete well-being. According to stakeholders, these individuals are trusted by parents as a familiar source of information. As one female administrator shared:

They have the ‘pulse’ of the student-athletes.

A second subset of stakeholders suggested that academic support staff members would be the best individuals to implement parent education because they have constant interaction and access to student-athletes throughout the year. A third group of stakeholders suggested that head coaches would offer an appropriate voice for parent education. Primarily, this built on the fact that coaches and parents have an established rapport and that coaches’ authority would serve as a great foundation for parent buy-in. Key stakeholders noted that if coaches were in charge, each could present the university athletic department’s parent policy in a way that was relevant to her/his specific team. As a coach, they could also then enforce the policy throughout each athlete’s career. As a male head coach (men’s football) shared:

I think it has to come from coaches, because sometimes the message is lost if it’s coming from someone else. There is direct interaction between the player and the coach, whereas the interaction with an administrator might happen a couple of times in their whole career.

A female head coach (women’s soccer) concurred, stating that the presenter needed to be someone who “understands the dynamic of the team” in terms of the specific roles coaches, parents, and athletes play in a given sport.

Smaller subsets of stakeholders offered third party sources, such as a sports psychologist or a former student-athlete, as appropriate voices for parent education. According to these individuals, these individuals would impact parents by offering a relatable “boots on the ground” perspective of the impact of parent involvement on student-athlete well-being. As a female administrator shared:

I think that a student-athlete talking to the parents can convey, “This is important for me. I needed my Mom and she wasn’t there,” and the moms are going to be like, “Oh God, I don’t want to be that mom!” I think that could almost pull at them more than a coach or administrator. They’re going to say “I’m a great parent.” But if they see a child saying, “I struggled, this is why I struggled, and this is what I needed.” They might take that more to heart.

A final group of stakeholders suggested that former sport parents would serve as the most appropriate voice for parent education. Largely, this was because parents who have been through the system are able to then reflect on the high and low points as a parent. Indeed, a female assistant coach (women’s basketball) suggested:

I think a lot of parents learn best by hearing stories from other parents. So, I think it (should be) a video or a pamphlet of parents of college athletes that tells us the five things you wish you have done different.

Despite disagreement regarding who would be the most appropriate voice, nearly all key stakeholders agreed on the characteristics of the individual who should engage parents. Specifically, participants noted that it needed to be an individual who was credible, relatable, and charismatic. Achieving this, they noted, would grab the attention of parents and drive home the importance of positive parent involvement in intercollegiate athletics.

Appropriate message.

In addition to providing an appropriate voice to deliver parent educational programming, key stakeholders also underscored the importance of crafting an appropriate message for parent consumption. Specifically, coaches, administrators, and parents emphasized that the message must correlate to the voice, while remaining focused on positive outcomes rather than making parents sound burdensome. A female head coach (women’s softball) stated:

If the message is conveyed correctly, it would definitely be beneficial. I enjoy watching other coaches coach because I can take something from them … but I don’t want someone to tell me how to coach. Same thing, parents want to listen and take something, but don’t want to be told how to parent.

Parent buy-in.

Coaches, administrators, and parents believed that once parents become accustomed to participating in an educational program, the majority would be willing to do anything in their power to help their student-athlete become more successful. However, most f these key stakeholders also noted that simply getting parents to participate — to buy into the program — would be the biggest barrier in achieving positive parent involvement. As a male Athletics Director noted:

I think you will get a great response from student-athletes, but I think you will get a percentage (of parents) that just don’t do it because of time. So, maybe participation becomes one of the barriers. I don’t think there is really any heavy barrier other than that.

Despite these barriers, it was the common opinion of key stakeholders across NCAA Divisions is that each could be overcome at an institutional level to foster positive parent involvement in the context of intercollegiate athletics.

June 22 2016

Educational Programming

Model

Educational Programming

One of the primary goals of the present research was to highlight key stakeholders’ opinions of what parent education programming should look like in the context of intercollegiate athletics. While the range of responses across interviews was wide, coaches, administrators, and directors spoke to two distinct implementation themes regarding the actual enactment of parent education:

Timing.

Key NCAA stakeholders spoke at length about the scheduling of parent education, specifically with respect to what time of year the program should be conducted. In intercollegiate athletics, the relationship between the university and student-athletes’ families begin, in earnest, during the recruitment process. Therefore, many stakeholders felt that laying out parental expectations at that time would be most beneficial. As a male head coach (women’s volleyball) stated:

I think (education) has to happen in the recruiting process … before the athletes even get here to campus, (parents) have to understand the relationship that’s expected. I think it is tough to change all that stuff later when they are already here and Mom and Dad are already in their ear and stuff … Earlier is better.

Stakeholders also widely expressed that once an athlete is committed to a university, parents should be repeatedly exposed to any and all parent policies in conjunction with taking part in a more formal education process. A male head coach (wen’s wrestling) exemplified this theme, stating that if coaches discuss policy daily with their players, they should take the same approach with parents:

Anything that you could get out to the parents, especially for that first year or first semester, it’s always on their mind. You know, as a coach you are always communicating the standards of your program to your student-athletes, so I think if you just (did the same) weekly with the parents, they would understand (their role).

Program content.

In describing the content that should be included in parent educational programming, many coaches highlighted the unique aspects of their sport and expressed a need for targeted (sport-specific) education. Despite this, a number of common sub-themes emerged, namely the importance of keeping presentations short, intriguing, and relatable. Stakeholders felt that the most important aspect of parent programming would be to frame it as an educational tool for enhancing the well-being of student-athletes rather than as mandatory policy. A female head coach (women’s gymnastics) compared educating parents to the daily education she provides her student-athletes:

I think we live in a world where education is important. I compare (parent education) to telling my athletes not to eat certain foods. I can only educate them on what good foods can do for their body, but then (I have to) allow them to make the decision.

Stakeholders also suggested that videos and/or vignettes could be created to show parents real-life examples of what positive and negative parent involvement behaviors look like in the context of intercollegiate athletics. As a male assistant coach (men’s basketball) stated:

I think you have to show (parents) examples of how they look through someone else’s eyes. HBO did a documentary … on parents who are pushing and pulling and just making it so uncomfortable for their kid. I think if you showed them the parents that are over involved you would get some denial there. But it might be good and it will reach some people.

The take-home message seemed to be that parents learn best by comparing themselves to others, not by getting a list of “dos and don’ts” from an unknown source. In addition, coaches, administrators, and parents stressed the importance of providing parents with a “big picture” view of parent involvement. This, many of these stakeholders noted, would allow parents to associate their own involvement with the outcomes experienced by their student-athlete. As a female head coach (women’s gymnastics) said:

Just saying, ‘you will get this result from this behavior and you will get that result from that behavior, no matter who your kid is’ (is not enough). You must say ‘the team will benefit from you doing that, which in return benefits the coaching staff and the athletes.’ I almost think (parents) need a map, so that they see the whole picture. If they are a parent who is constantly hovering they are only going to look at their kid. Laying out what it does for the team, what it does for the coaches and what it does for their child’s performance is vital.

June 22 2016

Barriers to Educational Programming

Model

Barriers to Educational Programming

Despite the positive endorsement of the need for the aforementioned policy considerations, coaches and administrators offered a number of potential barriers related to the implementation of evidence-based parent education in the context of intercollegiate athletics. Primarily, participants expressed four main barriers that would impede the implementation of educational programming across NCAA Divisions:

University buy-in.

In order for parent educational programming to be successful, coaches and administrators believed that it would need to have overwhelming support from the University. Specifically, this meant buy-in from university administrators, athletic administrators, coaching staffs, and support staff. As a male head coach (women’s swimming) stated:

If the parent education program educated the parents in a way that (the university) or the coaches did not agree with … then it’s a negative.

Feasibility.

In addition to university buy-in, key NCAA stakeholders noted that any program implemented at a campus level must actually be feasible. Indeed, coaches, administrators, and parents discussed the potential difficulty of gathering parents in a common location to take part in any form of in-person educational programming. A female head coach (women’s soccer) noted this as a potential barrier:

I don’t think it is realistic because you are never going to get all the parents together, with out-of-state kids. We have about 2/3 that are from in-state, but even with that we have one Hawaiian, and her parents can’t afford to come over more than once a year, for a game.

In light of this, most stakeholders felt that the most efficient form of educational programming would occur online through videos, presentations, and example vignettes.

Timing.

Another barrier discussed by key stakeholders across NCAA Divisions centered on the timing of educational programming for parents. Primarily, individuals debated the age and/or class level of student-athletes whose parents should be targeted. They also noted that younger student-athletes have parents with less accumulated experience, but that sometimes parents of older student-athletes are the ones who feel more “invested” in the program and/or entitled. A female assistant coach (women’s basketball) spoke to this issue as a potential barrier, noting that parents of student-athletes are going to be more willing to participate in parent programming when their student-athlete is new to the program rather than after they have settled into their roles in the second or third year:

I think freshman parents would be the best targets because they are almost like freshman themselves. They always have big eyes, and a lot of questions and they want to do what they are supposed to do. I think they would love it. I think after the first year, parents aren’t going to be too into it.

The majority of stakeholders also described parents as becoming less involved as their student-athletes develop and become more independent. Not surprisingly, they overwhelmingly agreed that the most impact would likely then be made on parents of first-year student-athletes (i.e., freshmen and transfers).

Funding.

The final barrier to implementing parent educational programming at a campus level was funding. Across the board, key stakeholders noted that that a lack of funding already limits the scope of most intercollegiate athletic programs. Therefore, coaches and administrators questioned where funding could or would come from to implement parent education on a recurring basis. A male assistant coach (men’s basketball) said:

Obviously funding, money is always an issue, especially when you don’t have any.

Despite the majority of coaches and administrators being excited about the potential positive impact of parent educational programming, they were all concerned about where funding would come from to afford the development and implementation of this needed program.

June 13 2016

Policy Creation

Model

Policy Creation

Athletic department stakeholders are generally in support of creating policy to address parent involvement in intercollegiate athletics. Collectively, administrators and coaches describe a need to create evidence-based policy to help guide parents’ involvement behaviors. Specifically, they discuss wanting parents to become more aware of the potential negative impact of their involvement behaviors, and hope to expose them to positive strategies of involvement and the outcomes associated with those behaviors.

Six primary policy creation themes emerged from our research, each of which should be considered by university athletic departments as they consider the best way to enhance parent involvement in the lives of their student-athletes:

Empower student-athletes.

Key NCAA stakeholders felt the hallmark of any policy regarding parent involvement at the intercollegiate level should focus on empowering student-athletes. A common feeling among these individuals was that over-involved parents could inhibit the growth of student-athletes by creating a dependent relationship. A female head coach (woman’s softball) stated:

I think parents can truly empower their student-athlete and they can also handcuff them.

Indeed, stakeholders shared that when parents take a step back, let their children learn from their own mistakes, and let the student-athlete advocate for themselves, parents are not only empowering the student-athlete in the sport arena, but they are fostering skills that are important for life after sports as well.

Protect sport as the coach’s domain.

Parents who are over-involved have a tendency to overstep boundaries and may even begin to take on roles that should fall to the coach and her/his staff. Stakeholders readily discussed how these parents are often involved in the coaching and recruiting of their student-athlete, making it difficult to take a step back when the student-athlete transitions to college. A male head coach (men’s golf) shared an anecdote about what he said to a father who overstepped his boundaries:

Let (your child) enjoy the experience. Let them be coached by people who have experience and have knowledge … We aren’t going to do it the same way you did it in your own house for the last 18 years, but we are doing it the right way or we wouldn’t be in the position we’re in … So let us do our jobs and know that we’re not perfect and let your kids feel that it’s okay for your kids to not be perfect.

The majority of the coaches interviewed admitted that they empathize with parents and that they understand letting go of a child is a hard thing to do. However, each reiterated that they are the coach for a reason and that their ultimate goal is to create an environment where student-athletes can thrive. The common message from coaches and administrators was that parents at the intercollegiate level need to hand over the reins and not worry about the decisions being made behind the scenes. In sum, that role should be left to the coaches.

Communicate with parents.

Interestingly, key stakeholders disclosed the potential role of policy in guiding how coaches communicate with parents as well. Many coaches shared the common goal of creating an environment where student-athletes feel able to advocate for themselves, thereby creating a more amicable and less aggressive context of communication between parents and coaches. A male head coach (men’s golf) expressed this desire directly to parents, sharing:

I let (parents) know the role that I have, the role that the athlete is going to have, and the role the parents are going to have, and it’s worked pretty well.

A desire for honesty and consistency in coach-parent communications seemed to be a common theme, as most coaches felt that being transparent regarding the expectations they have of parents was the best strategy for avoiding problems altogether. A male head coach (women’s soccer) shared his strategy for laying out expectations related to parent/coach communication at the onset:

I’m more than happy to have conversations with (parents) if there’s a problem. (They can) feel free to reach out to me. However, I would expect I would have already spoken to their daughter about this problem prior to (the parent) reaching out to speak to me … And, if we are to go and delve into it further, I would like your daughter to be present when we have this discussion so we’re all on the same page.

Understand the college transition.

NCAA stakeholders described the context of intercollegiate athletics as completely different than high school sports. For the majority of incoming student-athletes, it involves a unique transition, and helping parents understand the transition may help them better support their student- athletes throughout their careers. Many stakeholders shared experiences regarding the difficulties student-athletes can have as they transition from being the star of their high school team to being a freshman on a team full of stars. Furthermore, they discussed the physical, cognitive, and emotional changes that accompany that experience. As a male head coach (men’s baseball) described:

Maybe their son isn’t playing as much; they probably haven’t had those situations in younger leagues, so they are experiencing it for the first time. Their son is going through (adversity) for the first time. I am not saying that (parents) always handle it right — we as coaches don’t always handle things right, but it’s a tough situation for the student-athlete and for a parent to be in because they have been the best and the star and all of a sudden it’s a bigger pond.

The transition to intercollegiate athletics also includes a shift from high school to university coursework, as well as a shift from dependence on parents to independence. Largely, key stakeholders felt that parents — especially those who are over-involved — become so focused on sport-related outcomes that they fail to recognize student-athletes’ efforts to acclimatize to the demands of university life, while also becoming familiar with a new team, coach, and athletic program. As the same head baseball coach shared:

I think (parents) have to realize that the whole college process is a growing up process for their son, that it’s going to include struggles. To me, it’s a good learning experience and growing up process to go through the struggles.

Facilitate parent-child communication.

The majority of stakeholders recognized the potential for parent involvement to positively impact student-athletes; however, one area coaches, administrators, and parents feel parents are lacking is in their communication skills. Specifically, participants felt that parent-child relationships would benefit from enhanced communication strategies. Indeed, a male head coach (women’s softball) communicated the need for parents to learn how to offer constructive and time-appropriate feedback rather than criticism.

Most parents don’t have the education, so when they are giving negative feedback it is at an inappropriate time. If we get our butts kicked, that is not a time to tear them down more; instead it is a time to build them up a little bit.

Importantly, stakeholders shared that student-athletes have a tendency to create a fictional picture when talking with their parents, in order to please them. One coach talked about an athlete not putting forth effort in practice — and therefore not playing as much in a game – all while telling her parents she was performing exceptionally in practice. The coach used this to exemplify a situation where a lack of honest parent-child communication leads to an unnecessary conflict between a parent and coach. Both coaches and administrators feel that by being taught more effective communication skills, parents could become more efficient providers of support because it would reduce the impact of miscommunication in the coach-athlete-parent triad.

Educate parents.

NCAA Coaches and administrators expressed a certain level of empathy for parents of intercollegiate athletes because they know it is a brand new experience for parents in most cases. In light of this, these stakeholders discussed the need for parent education – implemented in a way that adequately prepares parents of incoming college athletes for the journey ahead. Most spoke of the need to educate parents about the recruiting process, NCAA rules, and the institutional expectations of student-athletes upon their arrival on campus. Specifically, coaches felt that helping the parents see what is going to be expected of the student-athlete before they are on campus may help prepare parents and better understand the roles they can fulfill to provide appropriate support for their children. As one male head coach (wrestling) stated:

I think it’s about understanding what (the student-athlete’s) time commitments are going to be and what their schedule is going to look like. ‘This is when we are going to have some downtime; this is when there is an expectation for training.’ I think most sports at the Division I level expect (student-athletes) to be here during summer training. It is not a situation when the kids get out in May and I think understanding what that calendar looks like is big for parents.