Dozens of Comal ISD parents and students told the school board Dec. 11 that the Canyon High School football program has a toxic culture that has harmed players’ mental health and opportunities.

At least nine speakers during the public-comment portion described similar problems: alleged targeting of individual athletes, lack of coaching feedback, mocking in front of teammates, and abusive parent behavior in the stands. "I voiced my concerns that my son was specifically targeted by an offensive coordinator," said Jessica McMillan, a mother of a senior football player, recounting emails and meetings dating from October 2024 through September 2025. "Saying sorry means nothing without change," she added, urging board and administration intervention.

Why it matters: Parents and students said the complaints are long‑standing and systemic, not isolated to one season. Several speakers said they followed the district chain of command without meaningful remedy, and some parents warned that coaches and students have left because of the climate.

Examples from the meeting: Lauren Clawson told trustees she followed district processes for two years and concluded, "This program does not need protection. It needs truth, accountability, and personnel changes." A student letter read by Jesse Harlow described being shifted from quarterback to tight end without explanation and later being mocked; the student said, "I feel like I was robbed of my senior season and the opportunity to be seen and recruited for college." Garrison Simcic said much of the problem "starts in the stands," blaming hostile parent social-media campaigns that he said filtered down to players. Other speakers — including a coach’s wife and a coach’s daughter — described being verbally attacked at games and online.

Board response and next steps: Board President Courtney Biassotti thanked speakers for their courage and said trustees appreciated the comments. Trustees did not take formal action during the meeting; public commenters asked the district to investigate, address leadership and consider personnel changes. The board’s governance role was reiterated; the district’s superintendent and staff were present to receive the comments.

What remains unclear: Speakers cited emails and meetings with campus leadership and district administrators; the board did not announce a formal investigation or timeline at the meeting. Specific personnel or disciplinary outcomes were not detailed in open session.

The board moved on to other agenda items after public comment; no formal vote or directive was recorded on the record at the Dec. 11 meeting.