i personally think we go about it backwards, that you should run track with the shorter distances, then move up to cross with the 5k. "walk before you run," so to speak. most of us started out, go run around that softball backstop and back here, in PE. then we run a 600 or something. then a mile. then a 2400. and eventually out to 5k in HS.
we then for reasons unclear to me make cross country more welcoming to newcomers, then say, ok, run 40 miles a week cold. and a 5k every week for a meet.
that's nuts.
the normal solid advice to adults just starting is actually run to a clock, because we have no idea if they can even do a 200 in faster than sundial time. so it's run 30s walk 1m repeats. idea being they try to run those 30s with some effort. and then steadily build that out.
hopefully a new kid is not that slow but it shouldn't be dramatically different. if we're running mile intervals, maybe they should start with 200s or quarters. then build up. maybe you're decent by the end of the season and able to do full workouts. then hand them off to track and see if they can push them further along.
i am sure the darwinian jerks are like, are you kidding with those workouts, or the kid shouldn't be on the team, but at my HS the "team" might be down to 10 kids end of some seasons because it made little dispensation for multisport athletes, who tended to quit in droves, and asked serious runner workloads from some new runner realities.
one interesting way of doing this would be you set up an interval but everyone stops and walks back in when the fast one finishes. "distance" for the fastest, "work rate for time" for the more modest or busy. there might be some value to completing a distance on long run days, but to me for slower runners, if the overall plan is too much, then every segment turns into a long slow jog as they are out of their depth.
that or literally have them doing windsprints or sprinter work at first. which is so short it's not that much different than run 30s and stop repeats.
this is kind of like the older i get i think there is more payoff in team sports from working on skills and scoring than the hard running work most coaches focus on. eg hoops coaches love to run their players, and you do need some of it, but you win by scoring more. i have seen teams like grinnell do ok by teaching the mediocre kids they can get to shoot endless 3s, and then shift change the kids off the court to deal with fitness limits. particularly in a JV-type situation, that seems like more of the "long term" play than just running them hard and relying on work rate to try and win games actually decided by isolated technical efforts. i get your JV soccer team may suck year 1 they show up but if they can't ball better but just run hard as seniors, you wasted 4 years of time to teach them how to play.
anyhow, pitch count the multisport, and work the noobs up to the level rather than demand the immediate endgame. the coaching is meant for their best runners, and then when i hear crap like double-T for most kids, not even them at many schools.