Chico High players and parents say coach’s conduct drove majority of team away; district substantiated complaints but kept coach

Ten Chico High students and a parent urged the Chico Unified School District Board on June 18 to remove or temporarily replace varsity volleyball coach Chaz Kopka after what they described as a sustained pattern of harmful conduct during the 2024 season.

"We all had an extremely negative experience," student Karina Stevens told the board, saying she and nine teammates raised concerns directly to Kopka and through exit meetings. Stevens said the team filed a formal complaint, which she said investigation findings substantiated, yet the district refused to remove Kopka from his coaching position.

Kaylee Solano, a Chico High student, said the coach’s repeated belittling tactics "made my mental health the worst it’s ever been" and cost the team’s love of the sport. "Ten out of the 14 girls… will not be returning if he has moved as head coach," she said, warning that retention of the coach would lower expectations for coaching across the district.

Kaylee and Karina spoke during the meeting’s closed-session public-comment period. Their father, Matt Solano, told trustees the complaint process was riddled with missteps: he alleged the school failed to follow its own procedures, named individuals with personal ties to the coach who participated in decisions, and disputed a June 2 public statement from the athletic director that had said Kopka was cleared. Solano urged the board to require a one-year leave of absence as a fair compromise.

District staff outlined several administrative responses during public remarks: an assistant coach will be added to the varsity team; expectations were clarified with Kopka; all Chico Unified coaches must complete additional training on interactions with student athletes; administration will periodically meet with players across sports; and the varsity volleyball program will hold at least two mandated meetings with players during the season. Those measures were described by staff as significant changes implemented after the complaints.

The students and their parent told the board those steps did not address the fundamental harm they said players experienced and that the district’s failure to remove the coach despite substantiated findings left them feeling unheard.

The board took no formal personnel action on the floor of the June 18 meeting. Trustees did not announce a vote to remove or place the coach on leave during the public session; staff indicated corrective measures and trainings are being required. The matter was discussed during closed session and the board adjourned to finish closed-session business after public comment.

The family speakers asked the board to consider the scale of the loss: they said dozens of returning players told school officials they would not try out because of the coach’s conduct and urged trustees to weigh the substantiated findings and procedural concerns when deciding next steps.