The Importance of Being Valued

How a podcast on segregation in US schools in the 1950's showed the importance of how influential a coach can be in the future success of a young person

These past few days I’ve been listening to the new set of podcasts of Revisionist History from Malcolm Galdwell. I can’t deny it, they have got me hooked. Last night I was listening to the most recent podcast called Miss Buchanan’s Period of Adjustment. I understand that I don’t have the time to write as much as have done in recent years, but listening to this gave me a stimulus to write something. Each passing second of this 31 minute podcast got me thinking about what we do in coaching with young players. Now bare with me because I want to give an overview of the podcast’s theme and story, however it will come around to youth development in coaching soon.

It was a fascinating insight into what happened when integration of black and white students was introduced to American schools in 1954. The “Brown decision” was deemed a milestone in American history, segregation or 2^nd class citizenship was deemed unconstitutional. The idea of segregation seems on paper to be an wholly acceptable problem and issue. Race should not define where you can go and what you can do. And we know at that time race was a serious problem in America. 

However Gladwell makes the point that for young black students, who went to all black schools and were taught by black teachers, they enjoyed their schooling. Taking the case to court wasn’t about parents of black children wanting to go to white schools because of the quality of education and teaching, it more about the fact that black children were denied the choice. 

Therefore the ruling to overthrow segregation in schools and have white and black children mix seemed to be seen as a huge success for America in terms of the issues with race and segregation. However the reason from the Supreme Court implied that segregation had a “detrimental effect on the coloured children”. Segregation meant it was unfair and caused harm to the black children’s development and education. However the case against segregation brought by those in the Brown legal case were not arguing this necessarily, they were simply talking about ‘choice’, control and opportunity, not the 'quality' of education. But the Supreme Court seemed to make the case that this decision was to save the black children from being "psychologically crippled" by segregation. Because they were being taught by black teachers?

Gladwell goes on to discuss how when segregation was abolished in schools that the ‘need’ for school teachers was lessened, and thus decisions were made on the teachers between the white and black school. And what happened? In the case he talks about none of the black teachers were hired, none. These teachers were deemed not as good as the white teachers. Therefore these mixed schools now were taught almost predominantly by white teachers. During the time when segregation was being abolished across the US the population of black teachers in the American south fell by about a half, from about 82,000 African American teachers to roughly 40,000. In the space of a decade, about half had been fired. And young black children are still suffering now. 

There is a still a shortfall in black teachers in today's schools. As a percentage there is far fewer black teachers than there are black students. And this has a major effect on the future potential of a young black child, because it turns out (perhaps not surprisingly) if you're a black child, that having a black teacher raises your chances to progress and succeed a hell of a lot.

The gatekeepers for the gifted and talented

The schools decided that white teachers were better than the black teachers. And the courts agreed. They overturned appeals from black teachers about their inability to be hired. The Brown case didn’t alter or improve the issue of racism. In fact the Brown case may have been a way for the white man, who feared the teaching of black teachers of young black children, to make sure the black teachers weren’t able to influence these young men and women any longer. What seemed like a success for black people may have actually been another setback to their progression by the white man. The court argued that their inability to get teaching positions came down to “intangible factors such as personality, character, disposition,, industry and adaptability can influence the role of a teacher”. Effectively, you're different to us and we don't want you. 

Even the ‘talented’ black teachers couldn’t get a job because of their personality problems; such as attitude and their apparent lack of respect for authority. As Gladwell says, ultimately “educational equality is a function of who holds the power in the classroom”.  It’s as though this case to overturn segregation wasn’t so much a way of helping black children improve their quality of education, but actually of taking away the influence of black teachers in their lives and actually diminishing the students chances of success even more. 

This point is made much clearer when Gladwell discusses what happens with 'Gifted and Talented' students and programmes. In these gifted and talented programmes you see that the majority of children who enter these programmes are white kids. A coincidence?

This has consequences. If you put young children into these kind of programmes you automatically create self-belief and confidence in a young person, they’ve been ‘chosen’ therefore they must be smarter, more intelligent and talented than others. This brings with it extra teaching, better teaching, more challenging teaching and more opportunity. It creates a divide between those who ‘have’ and the ‘have not’s’. Those who don’t get selected miss out on a lot of extra support and help, as well as the development of self-confidence of being ‘gifted’ and ‘talented’. Therefore if white children are far more likely to be selected, what does this say about black (if we look at today and the globalised element of schools then it’s better to say ethnic minorities) children’s opportunities for their future success? Wasn’t getting rid of segregation supposed to improve children’s opportunities and chances to “succeed”?

Well, as Gladwell points out, as is often the case for these gifted and talented programmes, it comes down to 'selection'. And this is often subjective selection. A person's opinion. Which means that the teacher’s role in the process and thus future of these children comes down often to their subjective feelings for a student, which unfortunately appears to be down to race as much as intelligence and test scores. It’s not necessarily about the child, but the teacher.  

What transpires is that a black child in school is significantly less likely to be selected by a white teacher than a black teacher. Having a black teacher raise the probability for a black child being selected to a similar level of that of a white child. Having a white teacher makes it almost 50% less likely. That’s very significant. Having a black teacher makes a difference. A big difference. And not just for gifted and talented selection. It has been found that test scores improve, influences behaviour and reduces the probability of suspension. Having a black teacher through a black child’s education in America reduces the chance by 39% that that child would drop out of high school.

Teachers are gatekeepers, they can provide opportunity, or they can discourage. They can push a person forwards, or they can limit their futures. Ultimately it comes down to this key message which came out of this 30 minute podcast, I will put it in bold and capitals just so you understand the importance of it. Ok, ready? “THEY TOOK AN INTEREST IN YOU!” This is it! As simple and as a clear as that. You need to have someone who takes an interest in you. The black students who were being taught at the all black school 'enjoyed' it because the teachers cared about them. Can the same be said for the white teachers? It appears there's still a bias, whether conscious or sub-conscious from white teachers to black students. That s a real concern. 

Gladwell highlgihts this idea, and I quote “once you grant this idea, that the teacher is a gatekeeper, and the child needs someone to take an interest in them, then that means integration should have been pursued very differently.”

He argues that had they integrated the teachers first, and not the students, laying the foundation for these new integrated schools to succeed for both sets of students, then this may have made a significant difference to the progression of all of the students. As he argues, the importance of teaching was missed in “the greatest transformation of public education in American history" yet they didn't "barely mention teachers”.  

When the black children moved to these white schools, and that’s what is was, the white children didn’t come the other way, the black children weren’t ‘saved’ or ‘helped’ when it came to teaching. Yes racial segregation was a major problem for black people’s opportunities. But by taking the black children away from black teachers, they took away people who ‘took an interest’ in them. Black teachers knew the black children. They nurtured them, supported them and valued them. The move created a problem for black children, because they lost the people who had valued them. The cost of segregation was felt by black people, not white.

Feeling valued

Just this morning I read an article in The Players Tribune (a truly wonderful site with some fantastic articles from a wide range of players and coaches from different sports) from NBA star Gordon Hayward who had written an article thanking the Utah Jazz for all they’d done for him in his time there. This section stood out greatly to me;

"I think about Coach Snyder, who, our first conversation, when we met for dinner after he was hired — we didn’t even talk basketball once. Not a single word. It was just life … and family … and who we were as individuals. As a coach, Coach Snyder is incredible in every aspect of the game. His leadership, his unique ability to motivate, and his insane attention to detail are such special qualities that I will miss so much. There’s a lot of people I have to thank for where I am today as a basketball player, but honestly none more than Coach Snyder.

I think about Johnnie Bryant, a guy who was a developmental coach when I first got here, and now he’s on the bench as an assistant. This past summer was probably the most important summer of my career, basketball-wise — just training to really take that next step as a player. And Johnnie, he’s just the best there is — he was right there, every step of the way, with me. He’s the guy who was having me work out with Kobe. He’s the guy who was sending me texts, late at night, early in the morning, just encouraging me, pushing me, “study this video,” “look at this game film.” He’s really the guy, at the end of the day, who found the All-Star in me."

There’s some great stuff in there to take away, this was what I loved; “he was right there, every step of the way, with me. He’s the guy who was sending me texts, late at night, early in the morning, just encouraging me, pushing me."

This is what being a support/mentor is about. Providing individual support to a person, making them feel valued and offering them help. It seems so easy and obvious but so often we can get mixed up in the idea of ‘team’ and all the stuff that comes with it, both on the pitch in training and games and off the pitch with paperwork, that we can lose sight that we are working with individuals, all with different backgrounds, personalities, likes and dislikes, baggage and issues. We could unlock so many players potential if we took an interest in them and their own personal development. And you know what’s crazy…if you do this, your team gets better, it gets stronger, the players improve, the bonds between player > coach and player > player get better. Taking an interest and making an individual feel valued works. 

I decided to use a picture of Steve Kerr and Steph Curry for this article as I believe there are a great example of the player coach relationship in action. Curry wasn't regarded as someone who was going to become the best player in the game, he had his flaws in terms of size and strength, but Kerr has embraced his talents as a shooter and dribbler and revolved the Warriors around Curry's talents, bringing out the best in him. Similar to what Pep Guardiola did with Lionel Messi at Barcelona. Both are the best in their respective sports (and best paid too). 

You cannot ignore the role and influence of a coach on these players careers, because it would have been easy for another coach to see the flaws and shortcomings instead of seeing a player they can revolve their team around. Getting this relationship breeds success and positive development. It comes down to valuing the players worth and strengths, embracing those strengths and showing faith and trust in that player. 

Too often I hear and see coaches moan about what their players can't do, and spend so little time on what that player can do, what his strengths are. It's no surprise then that the players performance suffers, because ultimately he doesn't have the faith of the coach, he doesn't feel valued. Go back to the black teachers and look at what happens with black students; test scores improve, behaviour improves, drop out rates lower. There's a positive correlation there. But take away race for a minute and talk about the individual. Show a care and interest in that young student/athlete and you'll see the same happen; positive improvement and development. It's not rocket science. But so many aren't doing it and young potential is suffering for it. 

Mentoring young talent

I do 1-1 training sessions with some players in local Academies and thoroughly enjoy working with these young players in order to help them improve. I like to think the sessions are challenging, demanding, hard work and above all enjoyable. We do a lot of competitions and challenges, I play 1v1 games with them and they can be quite competitive games. But above all I look at my role with these players as a mentor and support, because above all I value them as people. That is why I believe they enjoy the sessions, that they work so incredibly hard throughout a 90 mins. They know I’m there to genuinely help them. I care for them as people and players. The players I have are different ages and ethnicities, as I genuinely want to help people not because of the colour of the skin but because of who they are as people. 

Not being valued in your work, or your team, is one of the most demotivating aspects you can face. Which is why that line, “they took an interest in you” resonated so strongly with me. As a coach that is what I want to make the players and the coaches I work with feel. That I care. And by doing this I genuinely believe that you will see people excel and reach new levels, levels they didn’t believe they could reach. Because they have someone who shows an interest, who values them as a person and who cares. 

Is it easy to do this with all your squad of players and coaches? No. But is it possible? Absolutely yes! And here’s the thing, when you genuinely care, it’s not hard or time consuming because you’re fuelled with the passion to help and guide. 

We are seeking to introduce of mentor programme this year at our Academy as I have felt that while we offer individual plans and action plans for the players, that we provide feedback for them each week, that they actually haven’t really had the kind of support and care as an individual which will genuinely make a difference. I’m intrigued and excited to see how it works. There’s a need to trust in the staff, and not just the coaches, but physio’s, sports scientists, analysts etc to offer their support to individuals. I want all the staff involved, I want them all helping someone, making someone feel valued. Because I genuinely believe this is the difference and reason why players excel and don’t. Succeed or fail. 

The need for more diversity

Recently I’ve been considering a problem we have in our British Academies, and perhaps coaching and teaching as a whole. Which is perhaps why this podcast struck such a chord with me. It’s simple really, there isn’t enough black or ethnic minority coaches compared to the amount of black and ethnic minority players in the ‘system’. There’s a disconnect. A disconnect between the coaches and the players they are working with. 

On the Advanced Youth Award I attended this past year out of 120 coaches who were on the course, I think there were about 5 coaches who were non-white. This didn’t seem right to me. In a coaches meeting I was in recently there were 7 of us, all white. And we were discussing a player who was black. And it amazed me how the comments were all about what he didn’t do in order to fit in to what was expected in ‘this world’. It was a discussion without any appreciation of the player; of his background or his culture, especially considered in a positive sense. When those areas were brought up it was more about this being a ‘problem’. And there you have it! The same themes and issues of white people ‘holding the power in the classroom’. And this needs to change.

Now it seems to me that there is a ‘type’ of coach who is coming through the system now which fits a certain stereotype; white, between 25-35, university graduate, not an ex-pro (necessarily), nice guy. Does our Academy system, or coaching community truly represent the diversity which resembles the pool of players we work with? This is the same issue as the one Gladwell talks about when he discusses how black teachers value and importantly understand their black students. 

There are big cultural differences in the UK between ethnic groups and communities, different cultures, lifestyles and even languages - the political climate highlights this. At times I wonder if our Academy system tries too hard to make these players 'fit into' their own social construct, constructed often by white coaches, and then expecting these players to fit in or go somewhere else. Is this social construct taking in to consideration the players? Their background, culture and personality?

The truth is across the Academy system there are a lot of black players coming through and succeeding, which is great to see. However in a school context argument black children have always been pushed towards athletics and sport rather than education, and this is an issue to consider within schools. But even then, those players within the Academy system, do they have the diversity of a coaching staff to fully bring out the best in these players? I have my doubts. 

I fear that we are losing talented individuals who aren’t being valued or appreciated because they are ‘different’, when in fact difference and individuality is what we should embrace and value. Yet as 'gatekeepers' for these players future opportunities, from the scouts and recruitment team who 'select' the players, to the coaching staff who ‘decide’ on a players ‘talent’, you often find that the ‘nice’ lad is chosen. Why? Is it because of a bias against people who are different, or how we would perceive ‘difficult’? Are we being safe rather than willing to take risks? 

For me we need a more diverse mix of cultures and ethnicities in our coaching ‘community’ because I fear there is a majority emerging of one type of coach. I don’t believe this is good for the progression of a more a culturally diverse group of players.

I think we lose sight of the fact that our job as coaches is to help and support, not win games and trophies (necessarily) but to care about your players, to believe in them, to support them and be there for them. Listening to that 30 mins podcast was a wonderful experience for me, it reaffirmed my thoughts on the importance of being valued and triggered my concerns with the need for diversity in our coaching community.

The Whitehouse Address @The_W_Address