Mere's sprint pathway: transport, family duty and belonging
Mere, 15, is the fastest 100 m sprinter in her year group (12.4 s) and has been invited to a regional athletics squad. Training is Tuesday and Thursday 5:30–7:00 pm at a track 14 km from home, plus Saturday 8–10 am. Her family runs a small bakery; she is expected to help after school and on Saturdays, and there is one car, used by her father for deliveries. The bus takes 50 minutes each way and costs $6 return; she earns $40 a week from a weekend job. Her church youth group meets Thursday evenings. Mere says she 'doesn't want to be the girl who thinks she's too good'. Her PE teacher believes she could reach the national secondary schools champs in 18 months.
1. Analyse the factors influencing Mere's participation. Sort them into at least three levels, such as personal, interpersonal and societal or structural, and explain which two are most powerful in this situation.
Read the worked answer
Personal factors include Mere's own identity and belonging: she does not want to be seen as 'too good', and she is balancing athletics against church youth group and paid work. Interpersonal factors include family expectations at the bakery, the coach's assumption that athletes can attend fixed times, and peer norms about who belongs in sport. Structural or societal factors include one car, the 14 km distance, a 50-minute bus each way at $6 return, fixed training times, and the expectation that a 15-year-old helps in a family business. The two most powerful are probably the structural transport and time barrier and the family obligation, because they operate every week and cannot be solved by motivation alone. The 'too good' comment is also powerful because it turns participation into a social risk, but it is more changeable through team culture and visible role models. A coach who says 'be more committed' misses that commitment is already high - she trains and works - and ignores the cost of attendance.
2. Propose two realistic strategies that Mere and her supporters could use, and evaluate each for likely effectiveness and fairness.
Read the worked answer
Strategy 1: negotiate a partial schedule with the coach, attending Thursday and Saturday for the first six weeks and doing a solo Tuesday session from a coach-written plan. Effectiveness is high because it removes one 14 km round trip and protects a bakery shift while keeping her in the squad and in contact with coaching. Fairness is reasonable if the coach individualises for a regional athlete, but it must not become a two-tier system where only athletes with cars get full coaching. Strategy 2: set up a carpool or transport rota with two other squad families, partly funded by her $40 a week, plus a family conversation about an eight-week trial with reduced Saturday bakery hours. Effectiveness is moderate to high but depends on goodwill and reliability; $6 return is affordable, but 50 minutes each way adds almost two hours. Fairness is good if the arrangement is shared, less good if it makes her owe favours. A third option, telling her to 'try harder', is not a strategy because it does not change any of the barriers.
3. A coach says Mere 'just needs to be more committed'. Critique this statement using evidence from the scenario.
Read the worked answer
The statement treats commitment as an individual trait and ignores the evidence. Mere already trains, works and manages a 50-minute bus; a 12.4 s sprint suggests she is committed enough to be fast. What looks like low commitment is actually a scheduling and belonging problem: fixed training times collide with family duty, and the 'too good' stigma makes attendance socially costly. A commitment framing also risks blaming her for structural barriers and may push her to quit rather than negotiate. A better coach response is to ask what would make attendance possible, offer a written plan for missed sessions, and publicly value her as a squad member. The coach should also check whether squad norms, such as who gets lifts and who is assumed to be available, are excluding people. Commitment is better judged by follow-through on an agreed plan than by attendance at one fixed time. The coach's comment is therefore accurate about the importance of commitment but wrong about where the problem lies.