I agree with Clyde. If he is going to be paid with tax money, then he needs to be a teacher. There are too many teachers losing jobs due to tax cuts that money should be paid to pay someone to coach football only. If a booster club or someone else wants to pay a coach's salary, then I have no problem with it.

IMO coaches should not have to teach if they are getting paid by the boosters. I know that the tax payers don't want to add anything else, so if the boosters can do it, let them do it. Far too often, people who don't coach or haven't coach don't see all of the things that go into coaching. Fundraising, taking care of the locker room, making sure all equipment is up to par. Plus, you know, actually preparing and coaching kids and the game. Far too often I have seen coaches who have had to teach all day then leave right after school to go mow the field before a game or practice. Then they have to get the field set up for the said event. Coaching is a full time event that, during the season can often end up being 7 days a week because coaches just don't have time to do the things that the need to do. This in turn takes away from time with family and a lot of the time is why you see coaches leaving to spend more time with family.

I get the tax payer side of things, but I still do not understand what the problem is if tax payer dollars are going towards a better service that can't be secured by a school teacher? Public entities outsource services a lot more than people realize.

Out district doesn't allow any booster funds to be paid to any coaches for direct"payment" The supplemental stipend you receive from the district is what you get, no more, no less. The gray area is that the district also doesn't pay for each assistant coach either ( the booster club has to raise the funds for those coaches, but the check is sent to the BOE, processed through HR, taxes are taken out @ that time, then stipend checks are distributed to the Assistant Coach through payroll. Zero dollars goes from booster hand to coaches hand as payment.

 

District also doesn't allow a coach to profit off of hosting any summer camps, all that $$$ has to be deposited into the school in-house team account. I know many districts allow coaches to keep this $$$ obviously by filling out the proper paperwork, but it isn't allowed where I was unfortunately.

I get the tax payer side of things, but I still do not understand what the problem is if tax payer dollars are going towards a better service that can't be secured by a school teacher? Public entities outsource services a lot more than people realize.

 

If the tax payer knew what consultants were paid to work for a school district 3-4 times per year...there would be OUTRAGE! School districts pay 100's of thousands of dollars to have a consultant come in 3-4 times per year to "train" teachers (I will use that word VERY liberally). Its an absolute fleecing!

couple of things to add to the band vs. athletics discussion.

 

Band is considered as a co-curricular activity where athletics is not. It always got on my last nerve that a kid in band could be failing every class they had except for band & participate in practice daily & competitions on the weekend but a student-athlete that was failing more than 2 classes could not (not that I wanted to let failing students play sports, its just the concept I was talking about)

 

Since band isn't seen as an extra-curricular activity, they have no limitation on length of practice, 2 a days, 3 a days, etc.... that might sound silly, but when you look @ some of the "powerhouse" bands around the state, take a drive past one of these places in the summer & I can guarantee you that they are logging 8-10 hours a day 5-6 days a week in practice, where sports teams have strict practice limitations.

couple of things to add to the band vs. athletics discussion.

 

Band is considered as a co-curricular activity where athletics is not. It always got on my last nerve that a kid in band could be failing every class they had except for band & participate in practice daily & competitions on the weekend but a student-athlete that was failing more than 2 classes could not (not that I wanted to let failing students play sports, its just the concept I was talking about)

 

Since band isn't seen as an extra-curricular activity, they have no limitation on length of practice, 2 a days, 3 a days, etc.... that might sound silly, but when you look @ some of the "powerhouse" bands around the state, take a drive past one of these places in the summer & I can guarantee you that they are logging 8-10 hours a day 5-6 days a week in practice, where sports teams have strict practice limitations.

 

Dont let my wife see this.

You should not have to teach to be a coach of any sport. Since the example of band director was brought up, I'll use that as an example. While the band director typically has a full teaching schedule, they are teaching classes that are directly connecting with the area they direct. All teachers have a planning and a lunch period, I would like to see an additional "planning" period in place for those coaches or at least head coaches who teach so they can have an opportunity to prepare for the given practice, game, or etc.

Dont let my wife see this.

 

lol! why plantmanky? Inquiring minds want to know!

lol! why plantmanky? Inquiring minds want to know!

 

Band Director, lol.

Band Director, lol.

 

I understand. Personally as a former AD, I did see them as an extra-curricular, they put in the same work (& much more in their own way) than my programs did.

 

I was fighting an uphill battle for some equity from that standpoint with my administration, they would go to the band competitions & actively hand out food & drinks to the kids after their performance, but saw it as an awful part of the job to come to the athletic events & had relatively zero interaction with the coaches or student-athletes.

deleted (double post)

Head coaches should be in the building. As many assistants as possible should be in the building. Good coaches are teachers. BUT

There is nothing wrong with a head coach having an extra planning period.

There is nothing wrong with a coach teaching drivers ed.

There is nothing wrong with a coach only having 1 academic prep (teaching only 1 subject so the planning is easier).

There is nothing wrong with a coach being the in school suspension teacher.

There is nothing wrong with a coach being the credit recovery teacher.

There is nothing wrong with a coach being a job coach or a home-bound teacher.

There is nothing wrong with a coach being assigned cafeteria duty during all of the lunch periods.

There is nothing wrong with an administrator approaching it as valuing the time, effort and skills of coaches, especially head coaches and doing what they can within the school to use his skills and time in a way that isn't burning him out or driving him crazy. Coaches usually have a very positive impact on the behavior of students they are around. Coaches usually are effective in communicating, connecting with kids, and maybe simplifying things in a way that make sense for kids. Coaches are competitive and goal oriented people who want to succeed and do well at all their jobs so smart admins give them opportunities to use that in the building without overwhelming them.

Head coaches should be in the building. As many assistants as possible should be in the building. Good coaches are teachers. BUT

There is nothing wrong with a head coach having an extra planning period.

There is nothing wrong with a coach teaching drivers ed.

There is nothing wrong with a coach only having 1 academic prep (teaching only 1 subject so the planning is easier).

There is nothing wrong with a coach being the in school suspension teacher.

There is nothing wrong with a coach being the credit recovery teacher.

There is nothing wrong with a coach being a job coach or a home-bound teacher.

There is nothing wrong with a coach being assigned cafeteria duty during all of the lunch periods.

There is nothing wrong with an administrator approaching it as valuing the time, effort and skills of coaches, especially head coaches and doing what they can within the school to use his skills and time in a way that isn't burning him out or driving him crazy. Coaches usually have a very positive impact on the behavior of students they are around. Coaches usually are effective in communicating, connecting with kids, and maybe simplifying things in a way that make sense for kids. Coaches are competitive and goal oriented people who want to succeed and do well at all their jobs so smart admins give them opportunities to use that in the building without overwhelming them.

 

I agree 100%, BUT when the administrative team is blind to the fact that the athletics department is a value to the school it is impossible. Had to live through several administrators during my coaching & AD career that were absolutely stupid when it came to understanding the relationship of academics & athletics.

Head coaches should be in the building. As many assistants as possible should be in the building. Good coaches are teachers. BUT

There is nothing wrong with a head coach having an extra planning period.

There is nothing wrong with a coach teaching drivers ed.

There is nothing wrong with a coach only having 1 academic prep (teaching only 1 subject so the planning is easier).

There is nothing wrong with a coach being the in school suspension teacher.

There is nothing wrong with a coach being the credit recovery teacher.

There is nothing wrong with a coach being a job coach or a home-bound teacher.

There is nothing wrong with a coach being assigned cafeteria duty during all of the lunch periods.

There is nothing wrong with an administrator approaching it as valuing the time, effort and skills of coaches, especially head coaches and doing what they can within the school to use his skills and time in a way that isn't burning him out or driving him crazy. Coaches usually have a very positive impact on the behavior of students they are around. Coaches usually are effective in communicating, connecting with kids, and maybe simplifying things in a way that make sense for kids. Coaches are competitive and goal oriented people who want to succeed and do well at all their jobs so smart admins give them opportunities to use that in the building without overwhelming them.

 

This is the exact reason I voted yes. I think coaches should be in the hallways. The kids should see them everyday. Currently I teach at the Middle School, and don't see the HS players during the day. The only coach at the HS is our head coach. I know he would rather there be more coaches in the building. Just because they teach Driver's Ed or ISS or whatever, it doesn't mean they aren't having a positive impact on the players and other students as well. The more coaches in the building the better for the program!