|
|
Post by brophy on Nov 16, 2006 7:55:24 GMT -6
I don't have a problem with the current system of High School football coaching in America, but I am a little foggy on the reasoning behind requiring a coach to be district employee. I'm not an administrator, so I really wouldn't know the ins-and-outs of what is necessary, so maybe you all can shed some light on the matter. What is the rationale behind only allowing teachers to be coaches for high school football? Is this a union thing? Last time I checked, it's hard enough getting anyone to coach, let alone a select population.... thanks for any feedback in advance.  |
|
|
|
Post by wildcat on Nov 16, 2006 8:01:44 GMT -6
Brophy -
I think that it largely depends where you live?
On our current staff, four of us are full-time teachers, but another guy is a farmer and our head F-S coach is an executive for a company that manufactures plumbing supplies.
I DO know that administrators often put a very high premium on having coaches who work IN the building...idea is that discipline and academic problems will be easier to address if the coach works as a teacher, I guess?
|
|
|
|
Post by tog on Nov 16, 2006 8:03:39 GMT -6
brophy talkin bout texas ?
i think the main reason they want a coach to be an employee of the district is for liability reasons
the secondary reason that I have always heard, and agree with, is that the teachers that are also coaches make a HUGE impact on the school, being around and visible, the players act better, the whole atmosphere of the school is impacted by the coaching staffs in place, this one i agree with, as most of the places i have been would have been a total zoo if the coaches hadn't worked there
|
|
|
|
Post by coachjd on Nov 16, 2006 9:18:10 GMT -6
I would say the top 2 reasons would be liability and unions. At our school if a community member is coaching they have to post their job internally each year to see if one of the union members wants the job. In 99.9% of the cases no one wants the job because the majority of our teachers come to school at 8:00am and leave by 3:15 and refuse to get involved.
|
|
|
|
Post by information on Nov 16, 2006 9:22:37 GMT -6
Tog,
Do not forget the mandatory back-ground checks
Plus, you have a job to hold over there head for performance and attendance. I have seen in another state where a "part-time" coach stopped comming to practice...what do you do then?
Fire them...sure...but now you are a coach short....My teaching contract is tied to my coaching contract....if I resign my coaching job...that also means I just resigned my teaching job too!
|
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Nov 16, 2006 9:24:05 GMT -6
so far I only see political reasons.....surely there must be something else involved.
|
|
|
|
Post by wildcat on Nov 16, 2006 9:38:34 GMT -6
so far I only see political reasons.....surely there must be something else involved. No. Not really. |
|
|
|
Post by fbdoc on Nov 16, 2006 13:41:51 GMT -6
Having coaches (particularly Head Coaches) in the building as teachers is what administrators (Principals, Headmasters, AD's) call a "Best Practice". Tog hit it on the head when he said schools value the visible leadership that coaches provide during the day, for students and for the other teachers. It's also a huge communications plus, whether you're dealing with kid issues (abcences, etc) or coach issues (out sick or change of schedule).
|
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Nov 16, 2006 13:50:58 GMT -6
So it could be a preferred practice........but does this necessarily conform to some ISO standard?
To MANDATE that all coaches be teachers seems a little stringent, no?
|
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on Nov 16, 2006 13:53:31 GMT -6
accountablity factor.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachjd on Nov 16, 2006 14:06:23 GMT -6
just as all teachers should have a teaching license and should be teaching in their field of expertise. I don't think the local bank would see me as a qualified candidate for a VP of loans, even though I have a business ed minor.
|
|
|
|
Post by fbdoc on Nov 16, 2006 14:09:34 GMT -6
Our state (Florida) doesn't mandate it, nor do other states I've been in. Seems to eliminate a wide pool of qualified coaches who choose not to teach. It's hard to argue with the positives that go with having coaches as teachers in the building. Hopefully school districts (or states?) have flexible hiring practices that allow for bringing in off campus coaches.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Nov 16, 2006 17:05:40 GMT -6
I don't have a problem with the current system of High School football coaching in America, but I am a little foggy on the reasoning behind requiring a coach to be district employee. I'm not an administrator, so I really wouldn't know the ins-and-outs of what is necessary, so maybe you all can shed some light on the matter. What is the rationale behind only allowing teachers to be coaches for high school football? Is this a union thing? Last time I checked, it's hard enough getting anyone to coach, let alone a select population.... thanks for any feedback in advance. not required here. different job I had , the HC had his own business running a gym. |
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Nov 16, 2006 17:17:44 GMT -6
just as all teachers should have a teaching license and should be teaching in their field of expertise. I don't think the local bank would see me as a qualified candidate for a VP of loans, even though I have a business ed minor. I have State Endorsements/Authorizations in Iowa & Illinois, but Louisiana & Texas won't even consider non-teachers. What 'license' does coaching require that only teachers can fulfill? I'm still failing to see what is difficult about coaching, that only teachers are capable of fulfilling this role. Teachers are great, but I've worked with my share that are every bit as dedicated / or not as their commerical counterparts. You really wouldn't know some of them are actually IN the school building they are coaching for. Last program I was at, Only three coaches attended 90% of off-season (in-season) activities....two of them were non-teachers and the other was the HC. And I don't mean to rant, don't mean to come off condescending to anyone in the teaching profession.....just thought I'd ask a question, that I really never had the answer for. I could see only allowing only a small percentage of non-faculty members on staff, but just to bannish all nonbelievers seemed all little too baby-with-the-bath-water to me. I love coaching, but I'm not going to become a teacher just to be one. Though, the 'policy' comes off as only teachers are good enough to be coaches, everyone else just aren't good enough to. |
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on Nov 16, 2006 17:44:33 GMT -6
brophy, you are really viewing this bass-ackwards.
has nothing to do with "teachers are better" or anything of the sort. It is how the state of texas wants it's public servants to be "classified" or "certified". meaning, the high school is under state money, the employees are then basically "state employees", so, the state feels the need to make it so that all "state employees" have certain degrees, certifications, etc. likewise, any person that is going to work with a program in public education would fall under this umbrella, so, that person needs to meet these requirements. nothing about being a "teacher" but everything to do with being a full-time, "state" employee so to speak. just so happens that the districts choose to fill their coaches with teachers rather than mechanics in the maintennance dept. or people from the human resources department.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachcalande on Nov 16, 2006 20:02:35 GMT -6
I think its a case of "screw up and we can make you miserable because you teach here too"...
|
|
|
|
Post by tigercoach on Nov 16, 2006 21:12:29 GMT -6
Great points... One more to consider- we have lay coaches on our staff and one thing we have experienced is that lay coaches don't always coach with the same passion and intensity that school coaches do because if things go south lay coaches generally always have a primary job and coach as a hobby. True ball coaching during the season is mostly 7 days a week during long hours. Lay coaches always seem to have a situation "come up" and leave the school football staff members doing their work. We have had both types of lay coaches on the staffs I have been on but almost always, they end up as just that... lay people.
|
|
|
|
Post by midlineqb on Nov 16, 2006 22:23:37 GMT -6
In Kansas we higher what is called Rule-10 coaches. They have to go through the American Coaching Education program. They do not have to be teachers. Most work out great. What I don't understand is why another state won't give you certification if you've been certified in one or more other states and you present a copy of your transcripts. In Kansas and Oklahoma that is all I had to do to get certified. In Texas I will have to take 2 or 3 tests in the teaching fields I want to become certified in. I guess this starts a whole new scenerio on what Brophy started questioning.
|
|
neil
Sophomore Member
Posts: 218
|
Post by neil on Nov 16, 2006 22:54:25 GMT -6
Brophy - in Louisiana you can get C.E.C.P. certified and coach in High School. The LHSAA did say that Football and Basketball Head Coaches must be full-time employees. However, you can go through the Coaches Education and Certification Program and work at any LHSAA High School that will hire you.
In general, I think the main reason they make Coaches be Teachers, is because that's they way it has always been. That doesn't make it the best way to do it, but I think that has a lot to do with it.
I also think that administrators make themselves feel they are keeping the student-athletes, students first, by having one of their "educators" be their coach.
I don't totally agree, but I think that is part of the motivation.
I continue to ramble...Even though the majority of big successful programs' (For LA: Evangel, WM, and John Curtis) head coaches have no real teaching duties, the LHSAA doesn't think it to be fair for one school to have money to pay a Head Coach just to coach, so he can spend all day preparing for that week's game, when other schools cannot afford that.
I'm not saying it is right, just how I think some people think.
|
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Nov 17, 2006 5:48:07 GMT -6
brophy, you are really viewing this bass-ackwards. has nothing to do with "teachers are better" or anything of the sort. It is how the state of texas wants it's public servants to be "classified" or "certified". meaning, the high school is under state money, the employees are then basically "state employees", so, the state feels the need to make it so that all "state employees" have certain degrees, certifications, etc. likewise, any person that is going to work with a program in public education would fall under this umbrella, so, that person needs to meet these requirements. nothing about being a "teacher" but everything to do with being a full-time, "state" employee so to speak. just so happens that the districts choose to fill their coaches with teachers rather than mechanics in the maintennance dept. or people from the human resources department. great information, great perspective..this is what I was hoping to learn. Thanks!  |
|
|
|
Post by bucksweepdotcom on Nov 17, 2006 6:02:54 GMT -6
There was a rule in NYS that you had to a PE teacher to be the HC. Talk about limiting your pool!
Bryan
|
|
