Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Student Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Chico High players urge investigation into varsity coach after formal complaints
Summary
Two Chico High students told the school board they filed formal complaints alleging verbal intimidation and mental abuse by the head girls varsity volleyball coach, saying most returning players would not return without a coaching change; the board thanked students but took no formal action at the meeting.
Two Chico High students told the Chico Unified School District board on March 12 that they and teammates had filed a formal complaint alleging the girls varsity head coach used intimidation and belittling tactics that created an unsafe environment.
"Our head coach, Chaz Canopka, intimidated us, belittled us and was only conditionally supportive," student Karina Stevens told the board, saying players and parents had taken complaints to the school administration and felt those concerns were not investigated thoroughly. "Ten out of 14 girls that would be returning players will not come back for the 2025 season if he remains in the program."
Kaylee Solano, another returning varsity player, described repeated episodes she called "mentally abusive," saying the coach shouted at players and made comments that left students playing in fear. "At state playoffs, a ref confronted the parents in the stands out of concern of the comments yelling and belittling that Chaz was displaying," Solano said. She told the board her group had raised the matter with athletic director Jason Avister, vice principal Gary Story and Principal Erica Sheridan.
Both students asked the board to ensure the district investigates the complaints and considers replacing the coach if the allegations are substantiated. They said the complaint process had been followed at the school level but expressed uncertainty about whether the administration had relayed the concerns to the coach.
Board President thanked the students for speaking publicly and noted there would be another public comment opportunity later in the meeting. There was no motion or vote by the board on the matter during the session.
What the students said aligns with the district—hain of reporting: the speakers identified school‑level contacts they had notified. The board did not discuss personnel action in open session; the board chair reminded speakers that the district follows established complaint and investigative procedures and said the board appreciated the students' courage in speaking.
The next procedural step for the board would normally be reliance on the district dministration to confirm whether a formal investigation is underway and whether additional action is required; no such status update was provided during the meeting.
The board continued with the published agenda after thanking the students for bringing the issue to its attention.
