Clyde's thread about coaching salaries in Alabama sparked this idea. I'm sure this has been talked about on here before, but I think it could spark some great discussion.

 

Do you think high school football coaches should be required to teach?

 

My vote is NO. I think with the right screening processes and obviously formidable resumes, coaches should not be required to teach.

I don't think they should HAVE to... That said, I think it is advisable for assistants to teach... I don't think it makes any sense to make head coaches teach. With all that goes into both teaching and coaching these days, it is nearly impossible for someone to do a quality job as both a teacher and a HEAD coach. You wind up with one of three things... 1) A quality coach but less-quality teacher, 2) A good teacher but less impressive coach, or 3) an ill-prepared teacher AND coach.

 

Of course, a happy medium is currently used by a lot of districts... Assign them some sort of building responsibilities that don't require all the extra planning and paperwork (ISS, PASS, Dean of Students, etc.).

It's high school for goodness sake. It's not college.

It's high school for goodness sake. It's not college.

 

You've clearly never been fired while being a great teacher but coaching a 3-8 team.

You've clearly never been fired while being a great teacher but coaching a 3-8 team.

 

If they also lost their teaching job that's equally as reprehensible.

They shouldn't have to teach but if they don't then I think the booster club should pay their stipend and not the school.

As AD I always tried to get my major sport coaches as easy a schedule as I possibly could in the school. PLATO / Credit Recovery / SAFE Room, Co-Op or EBCE teacher etc...... That being said, you have to have an administration that is willing and able to buy in to this concept & to ultimately have to ruffle some feathers by moving some teachers out of these positions & back into an academic setting to open these positions up for the coaches in the building.

 

Unfortunately there are not enough positions such as these to give to each head coach, so you have to pick & choose which ones have the greater load on them & need to be in one of these less stress positions (not saying that one coach is more deserving than another, but you all can read between the lines on Coach A of this sport__________, has more irons in the fire than Coach B of this sport__________) You all can fill those blanks in as you see fit.

 

This being said, during my time as AD, I was in the classroom the entire day outside of my planning period in academic classes, no easy way out for someone trying to run the entire department.

Sell me as the taxpayer on why tax $$ should be used to pay a non-teaching/coaching only position. Let's assume he is not doing some other job which I think it what we are talking about in this thread.

 

Pure coaching only at a public school and all $$ are tax $$? Don't see it.

Sell me as the taxpayer on why tax $$ should be used to pay a non-teaching/coaching only position. Let's assume he is not doing some other job which I think it what we are talking about in this thread.

 

Pure coaching only at a public school and all $$ are tax $$? Don't see it.

 

They don't have to be paid with tax dollars. They can be paid by boosters for the sake of this discussion. How they are paid wasn't part of the equation when posing the question.

They don't have to be paid with tax dollars. They can be paid by boosters for the sake of this discussion. How they are paid wasn't part of the equation when posing the question.

 

That's why I asked. If it's booster money then have at it. I don't think anyone would argue with that. The real debate IMO centers around a public school paying a coach to only coach.

Sell me as the taxpayer on why tax $$ should be used to pay a non-teaching/coaching only position. Let's assume he is not doing some other job which I think it what we are talking about in this thread.

 

Pure coaching only at a public school and all $$ are tax $$? Don't see it.

 

Band. Most public schools employ teachers to do band only. What's the difference?

Band. Most public schools employ teachers to do band only. What's the difference?

 

None. Did not know that

 

How much are they paid ?

Band. Most public schools employ teachers to do band only. What's the difference?

They teach music lessons during the day as well as after school performances (half time and performance routines) don't they?

No. The coach needs to perform whatever vocation that he's trained to do that will provide for himself and his family.

 

However, always better to have a coach in the hall to recruit players and monitor their behavior.

They teach music lessons during the day as well as after school performances (half time and performance routines) don't they?

 

Usually no lessons during the day, if at all. They will teach band and the after school activities would be the same as football games for a coach, IMO.

 

Some band directors will teach at different levels throughout the day (High School, Middle School, Elementary School).