zbessac
Sophomore Member
Posts: 149
|
Post by zbessac on Mar 5, 2008 2:32:57 GMT -6
I live in a city where n order to become the head varsity coach of any varsity sport, you must be a teacher in the union. I have a really hard time with this, I unfortunately didn't finish my education degree, instead got a job making twice as much as a teacher with the same hours. (except summers off) I find it unfair to good football coaches and to the players, that not all candidates are given a fair shot at a coaching vacancy. What does everyone else think?
|
|
|
Post by gschwender on Mar 5, 2008 6:26:56 GMT -6
I think being in the building is important--helps build better relationships with the kids. In missouri you have to hold a teaching degree to be a HC but do not have to teach there or even teach. I think this year the state is playing with idea of changing it to where you only have to have 60hrs (like a sub teacher) to be a HC but that remains to be seen
|
|
|
Post by joelee on Mar 5, 2008 6:38:45 GMT -6
It is high school football. If you don't want to teach coach a different level.
|
|
|
Post by fatkicker on Mar 5, 2008 7:04:56 GMT -6
here in good ol' miss....you have to have the certification and degree......and most every header teaches something.....even if it's p.e. or weights.....ricky woods (former header at south panola) even taught a.p. biology 2 for a while.....
in my humble opinion, coachin is more than showing up at 2 and blowin the whistle.......
you should want to be in the building all day....it would be hard to stay in control without it...UNLESS you had quality, long-time assistants in the building that could be your eyes and ears......
|
|
|
Post by scoresalot on Mar 5, 2008 7:35:03 GMT -6
Many times it isn't a state rule that you have to be a teacher to coach, but it is part of the teacher's contract that teachers get the first shot at coaching positions or the district has rules against it. I know in Ohio, most districts I am familiar with want teachers first, but if there aren't qualified teachers, they will look to outside candidates. It is not a state rule though.
One way I have heard of people getting around the rule is to get a sub-certificate. In many states you just have to have a college degree, and in some states you just have to have two years of college. Once you get the certificate, you can get on the sub list. You don't have to ever accept a sub job, but maybe that could get you around the rule. I've seen people do it. Might be worth looking into.
|
|
|
Post by rideanddecide on Mar 5, 2008 7:37:30 GMT -6
You can be a good coach without being a teacher, I don't think that is an issue.
But, as the others said, it is HIGH SCHOOL football. Not city league, not AAU, it is a school sponsored activity.
I do believe the schools that require a HC are limiting themselves and I disagree that this is the best decision, but if I were an administrator I would pick the teacher over a slightly better coach that doesn't teach any day.
I had the opportunity to take a job at a school twice the size of my current school. More money, better facilities, more prestige, etc....Great situation. Didn't take it because I am certified to teach grades 1-9 and they couldn't find a HS teaching spot for me. I didn't feel good about being a head coach and not being in the building with my kids.
|
|
|
Post by tog on Mar 5, 2008 7:47:31 GMT -6
You have to be an employee of the district to coach in Texas. This means teacher about 99.9% of the time.
|
|
|
Post by groundchuck on Mar 5, 2008 7:49:51 GMT -6
I think there is something to be said for being a teacher and being in the building, or at least having a couple of guys from the staff in the building if the HC is not.
At our school the HC has his teaching lic. and subs alot. He is also self employed in another business. BUT most of the rest of the staff is in the building at various grade levels and subject areas so they can help keep tabs on things.
From my experience as a head coach I spent 4 years in the HS/MS campus all day. Fewer problems, grades went up, less "coach I don't feel good I am going home sick grabage."
The final year I was split between the two buildings and guess what, more discipline problems, more kids missing for lame-o reasons, and come mid-term time more kids out with failing grades. Believe me it was not idea to split time.
Here is something though: Two of my assistants when I was a HC were not teachers, one was great and understood that kids were STUDENTS first, then football players. The other guy was the exact opposite. He was not a teacher and honestly could have cared less about thier grades,(except for eligibility) or being a role model. I think this is why sometimes administrators are concerned about non-teachers in leadership roles in athletics.
Each situation is different. I know some very good and successful coaches who are not teachers but understand football's role in the educational system. They are good men, and maybe that should be the bottom line.
|
|
|
Post by coachdawhip on Mar 5, 2008 12:33:36 GMT -6
IN GA to be a HC in any sport, you just be a certified teacher.
|
|
|
Post by cqmiller on Mar 5, 2008 13:26:24 GMT -6
I've coached in UT & CA, and it's not a WRITTEN RULE, but I've only seen like 2-3 Head Coaches that do not teach at the school, but both of them were already retired from teaching, and hung out at the school in their office ALL DAY LONG... so they were at the school everyday like some of the other coaches have said...
|
|
prossi
Sophomore Member
Posts: 108
|
Post by prossi on Mar 5, 2008 13:36:38 GMT -6
I am the head of Buildings and Grounds and the Varsity DC. Yes it is like having cake and eating it too. I am in the building. We have no problem getting in on holidays and Sundays and football field is always ready to go. The certified teacher thing is a way for the teachers union to keep teachers employed and give teachers a way to get the stipend. Just like you have to have a teaching degree to be a facilities director or assist superintendent in charge of buildings or Finance in some districts, which in some cases isn't always the best. However coaching and teaching are in allot of ways similar.
|
|
|
Post by bluecrazy on Mar 5, 2008 14:36:26 GMT -6
In Michigan, no rule. I'm self Employed, and a H.C. I also know of others who coach, and don't teach. One just won a state championship. Yes it has it's draw backs, number one is: when your in the building, it is easier to recruit. After that all is about the same. The other hard part for me, is that the school is 20 minutes away , and opening up the gym at 6:00 am, and then back home at 7:45 to get ready for work can be taxing. But I love it.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Mar 5, 2008 16:35:20 GMT -6
Hey, there has to be a perk to being a teacher right?
This is kind of along the vein of a post I made several months ago...should football/sports be taken out of the schools.
|
|
|
Post by jm on Mar 5, 2008 17:02:26 GMT -6
what joelee said. Being a HC and not in education is having your cake and eating it too. Plus coaching is teaching. Who wants to have cake and not eat it?
|
|
|
Post by wingtol on Mar 5, 2008 17:05:17 GMT -6
It is high school football. If you don't want to teach coach a different level. Totally disagree. In my 12 years of coaching HS football neither of the two HC I worked for were teachers. One worked as the director of developement and some other jobs(private) till he was pushed out and now holds the same HC/Dir of dev. in a public school. Current HC is not a teacher, worked for 4 years at a local Boys and Girls club now works in the district I teach in as a behavior spec. in an AEP program. I teach elem phys ed in the local urban/inner city district and don't coach there. I have been around many great coaches who weren't teachers. Does that mean they couldn't teach? Not at all. They were great teachers, just not their profession. If you have a passion for the game, the players, and coaching above and beyond the X and O's then I don't think it should matter. On the flip side I have seen several jobs goto teachers who were in the union and they weren't even close to being the most qualified. So is it worse to have someone who is a bad coach/teacher or someone who is a great coach/non-teacher? To say if you don't want to teach go coach at another level is absurd. If you want to make a difference in young men's lives it shouldn't matter if you are a certified teacher or not.
|
|
|
Post by jm on Mar 5, 2008 18:58:40 GMT -6
It is high school football. If you don't want to teach coach a different level. Totally disagree. In my 12 years of coaching HS football neither of the two HC I worked for were teachers. One worked as the director of developement and some other jobs(private) till he was pushed out and now holds the same HC/Dir of dev. in a public school. Current HC is not a teacher, worked for 4 years at a local Boys and Girls club now works in the district I teach in as a behavior spec. in an AEP program. I teach elem phys ed in the local urban/inner city district and don't coach there. I have been around many great coaches who weren't teachers. Does that mean they couldn't teach? Not at all. They were great teachers, just not their profession. If you have a passion for the game, the players, and coaching above and beyond the X and O's then I don't think it should matter. On the flip side I have seen several jobs goto teachers who were in the union and they weren't even close to being the most qualified. So is it worse to have someone who is a bad coach/teacher or someone who is a great coach/non-teacher? To say if you don't want to teach go coach at another level is absurd. If you want to make a difference in young men's lives it shouldn't matter if you are a certified teacher or not. Agree. The more male role models in different professions and walks-of-life that teenagers can be exposed to the better-off they will be.
|
|
|
Post by jhanawa on Mar 5, 2008 21:07:39 GMT -6
I can agree with both sides. I think it is beneficial to have the HC on campus, but not critical given the right atmosphere. I see HC's in my area that are NOT qualified but are given the position because they are teachers. I think this gets progressively worse when you are talking about assistants, many of whom are looking to collect an extra check and do not look to improve their knowledge of the game or their coaching skills. It all boils down to whether the guy can coach or can't. What are his credentials, what is his knowledge base. If he can teach the game and is a good role model, then hire the best candidate for the position. And no, I'm not a teacher, and no, I have no desire to be a HC or a teacher. This does not mean that I don't know what I'm doing or that I'm not qualified to coach High School football. I prefer to be a coordinator and let the HC deal with all the BS.... What irks me is that unqualified people are given these positions based soley on their being a teacher. Would you have any teacher step in and run the teacher's retirement & pension program simple based on the fact that he's a teacher and a member of the union? I think you'd want to know that he has solid financial credentials when he's dealing with your money and your future. I think parents feel the same about who's coaching their kids, is the individual qualified to coach my kid? Yes, I know most parents don't know anything about football, but I think its a legitimate analogy regardless.
|
|
|
Post by spartancoach on Mar 6, 2008 7:39:53 GMT -6
I have seen a few "teacher" HCs that are really just interested in it for the extra paycheck and will not work the extraordinary hours it takes to run an organized program. If there is a more dedicated and qualified candidate outside the building, I say whatever is in the best interests of the kids should prevail.
|
|
|
Post by rjcousin on Mar 6, 2008 8:29:46 GMT -6
No offense intended - but why WOULD YOU NOT want to hire the BEST candidate for the Head Coaching Position regardless of what they do as a day time job? To hell with what the Union things, to hell with what Administrators think to hell with what the "ADULTS" think - if the guy has a rock solid knowledge of the game, is a great leader who can communicate with the kids, is strong ethically and a fantastic role model and the kids respond positively and become better people for the experience.... what more do you want? what more do you need?
Being on site definitely has advantages for communication purposes and during the day teachers are needed not coaches. Football is an Extracurricular activity - blurring the line is causing some of the issues that High School Sports face today.
|
|
|
Post by k on Mar 6, 2008 10:10:26 GMT -6
1) I think that a coach being in the building automatically makes them significantly better than a coach outside the building all other things being equal so I see it as perfectly reasonable to demand that coaches be in building (one of our Custodians coaches baseball so that works well too).
2) I think that if the students are getting credit for playing (our kids get a half a credit for playing a sport) than it is perfectly reasonable to require teachers certification.
|
|
|
Post by senatorblutarsky on Mar 6, 2008 16:45:09 GMT -6
I'll throw in some thoughts here from the perspective of a teacher/ AD / HC: The last two posts especially:
No offense intended - but why WOULD YOU NOT want to hire the BEST candidate for the Head Coaching Position regardless of what they do as a day time job?
1) I think that a coach being in the building automatically makes them significantly better than a coach outside the building all other things being equal
I guess this is a case where I really like how we approach this in Nebraska. A HC does not have to be a certified teacher- but a HC does have to be a certified coach (college grad., + about 9 hours: CPR/First Aid, a human relations course and ASEP)
I've been a HC for 17 years now... 16 in the building. One year (early) I was a HC but taught in an off campus middle school. Obviously, that didn't work well for me because I was only there for a year.
It is VERY helpful to be in the building. That doesn't affect knowledge, ability to teach, etc... but it does heavily impact relationships with players. I know my players very well and know them in situations outside of football which is a tremendous asset.
Currently, of the 6 major sports we offer (Football, VB, G/B BB, G/B Track) 4 HC are in the building. I have more parental issues, more eligibility infractions... more problems with the two who are not in the building. They are good coaches, and good people and are the most qualified here to coach. Still, situations arise that cause them to be "out of the loop" a bit (especially when I am gone at a clinic or admin. meeting... whatever... some issue always arises when I'm not around). Because of this, I would rather have all HC in the building, but the reality of it is that a person who is much more qualified and out of building is better than an apathetic or unqualified person in the building.
Not trying to get political, but I am not a union person here... never have been (not a fan of the NEA... refuse to join because some of my $ goes to them). I see "union requirements" and "union directives" as problematic because I've seen it far too many times- PE/HC job opens, guy takes job, gets tenured, quits coaching but keeps PE job. Now the school is in a bind- they can not hire a HFB/PE combo, so they are left with all sorts of weird combos (I actually saw some jobs advertised in a neighboring state as: Head Football, Family & Consumer Science Teacher" and "Head Football, K-12 Music"). Job openings like that really reduce your talent pool- probably to a point where an administrator has to be willing to sacrifice one aspect of the job (usually it is sports).
I entered the teaching profession PURELY to coach. I learned to like teaching enough to make it my career, and I think those of us who have sacrificed a bit financially expect others to do the same and are irritated when others infringe on "our turf". We all get a bit territorial when it comes to our vocation, which is not all bad.
The bottom line is that we as coaches, educators, or simply people who care about kids need to focus on what is best for kids... many times that is to have a person in the building, but that is not always the case.
I'm just guessing here, but I would bet that our case is somewhat representative... a school can probably fill 2/3 of their HC jobs with qualified people within the building. The other 1/3 must either come from those unwilling or disinterested... or must be expanded to include those outside of the school.
Given: pay (not really bad, but not as lucrative as many other professions), NCLB, more hoops to jump through to get in to or stay in the profession, the ever expanding role of a teacher (teacher, disciplinarian, counselor... parent in some cases) makes it less attractive than it may have been at one time. Less people are willing to teach even if that means potentially sacrificing their dream of coaching.
Recently we dealt with a bill here (NE Legislature) to allow club sports to overlap with HS sports. It looked like it will die (for now), but state and local associations or boards, teachers unions... even administrators probably need to revisit some archaic systems we have in place.
I remember coachd5085's thread... it is a definite possibility that sports will be phased out of schools giving way to the club team.
That would be a sad day to me anyway...
But to (finally) address zbessac's original post: I honestly believe that it benefits all involved (program, players, coaches, school, community) to have a coach who is so devoted to coaching that he was willing to teach (perhaps a sacrifice... but we ask this of our players daily) and be a member of the school community. However, in the absence of this type of person, it is better to have a knowledgeable coach who cares about young people from outside of the school.
Just my take from a few different sides of the issue.
|
|
|
Post by scoresalot on Mar 7, 2008 7:24:25 GMT -6
Blutarsky:
Very well said. I have been on all the same sides that you have, and I agree that it is better to have someone in the building, but if they aren't qualified or motivated then we are not giving the kids the support they deserve.
|
|
nexthc
Junior Member
"The Golden Rule"
Posts: 439
|
Post by nexthc on Mar 7, 2008 7:36:14 GMT -6
High School coaching staff... We have both on our staff (6 coaches who are teachers and 3 who are not teachers). Out of the 6 teachers, 5 of us are in the building. One of our non teacher goes to work at 4:30 AM and get off at 10:30 AM... and then comes to school around 12 noon. The other 2 work true full time jobs (Business world). They get to practice right when it begins.
We are blessed to have a good staff here and all of us work hard in trying to improve in the coaching profession. However, it can be very difficult for the non-teachers to move up. Can they, yes, but where we are in our area (county) they will take a teacher over a non-teacher for a HC position.... or at least that has been the case for the most part in the past.
So I can see both sides of the story (probably because I am a Libra). You do not have to be a teacher and coach, but it does not hurt. Me being a teacher and coach in the same building is so much easier then being a non-teacher and coaching.
Just my 2 cents!
|
|
|
Post by k on Mar 7, 2008 9:23:42 GMT -6
A HC does not have to be a certified teacher- but a HC does have to be a certified coach (college grad., + about 9 hours: CPR/First Aid, a human relations course and ASEP) Yeah same here and IMO the right way to handle it. I'm a strong supporter of organized labor and a strong supporter of our local. That said you're right 100% in your above statement and my take on it is that if you were part of the union you'd have more of a voice in trying to change the parts of the contract you don't like such as above. I see no problem in filling "low interest" sports such as cross country or track with a HC that is off campus but when it comes to football our HC is off campus and it really does hurt the program even though he is a great guy and very active (he is in the building almost every day) but not being in the building every block of every day is definitely a negative if you're looking at the coach as an all around support structure for the kids which IMO we are. I LIKE when teachers come to me and tell me what my kids are doing wrong. I know people complain about that here but I want to be able to help them develop and I think a large part of that is knowing what they don't want you to know. I get 10 emails or so every day updating me on kids both positive and negative. I'm glad to take on that role but it would be beneficial if the HC was the one in that role. Pretty darned awful IMO. I'll make 46k (teaching) +8k (2 sports coaching) as a young teacher with a masters. If I had graduated from the school I did with a MBA instead of a MA in History I'd no doubt be making more and probably doing less work. Yet I still wouldn't trade... =) Ditto... Great job IMO.
|
|
|
Post by coachdawhip on Mar 7, 2008 11:31:37 GMT -6
Football is more than Wins and Losses.
In GA, we don't have union's so it is a simple STATE RULE that you must be a teacher.
I LOVE being a TEACHER!!!
how can someone who works a regular 9-5 just show up to coach a football team as the HC?
How does he deal with the "other" isssues that the students have on a daily basis?
|
|
|
Post by tom12 on Mar 7, 2008 12:01:35 GMT -6
I think that many are missing the idea. To quote groundchuck: "I know some very good and successful coaches who are not teachers but understand football's role in the educational system." Others have also alluded to my point.
The key phrase is "role in the educational system." Many times, we lose sight of the fact that high school athletics are part of a bigger picture. The reason that many school districts require a teacher to be the head coach is that it is a school program, not something independent of the school system.
Many times a district cannot hire someone qualified to coach within the ranks of the teachers and must go outside to fill the position. This, I believe, is a slippery slope that we will never recover from. I agree that requiring applicants to be teachers might limit the pool of talent, but I do not think that school districts should be criticized for wanting a school person to run a school program.
I also agree that athletics will eventually be taken out of the schools. Take a look around at the turmoil (read physical abuse) coaches and administrators are taking from parents involved in their kids' athletics. You don't see that many parents attacking their kids' physics teacher because of perceived shortcomings in the science department.
|
|
|
Post by bluecrazy on Mar 8, 2008 10:21:12 GMT -6
OK, I have followed this post with great interest. First of all I want to say that I totally respect all of you that are Teachers. Fact is we don't have enough good Teachers in our school systems. My son is a teacher in Clermont Florida area. I respect what he has gone threw to earn his degree, and the student loans that He still has to pay. He played both Football and Baseball at Division 3 Rockford college in Illinois. Without good Teachers, and good education, our society does not have a chance!
However with that said, and as I posted earlier, I am not a teacher. Knowing what I know now, and with hind sight, I wish I had gone that route. But, I do have an education, and have paid the dues to earn it. Does that mean that I'm uneducated enough to be a Head coach at the High school level? I think not. I still push the grade issue with the kids, and know how important it is to get a good Education.
I have also paid my dues by being an assistant coach for 12 years before I got the head gig. As many of you on this sight , I'm still trying to Improve myself as a coach, and ask questions, and learn by reading other post. When I think I can help, I will post an answer.
But just because I'm not a teacher at the school, or at another school, dose not mean that I can't forge a relationship with the students that I coach. In fact I go out of my way to do so. I also have a very good relationships with the teachers in the school. They know how to reach me if need be, and I can ask them about any of the students that I need to talk about.
I'm saying, that if a coach is willing to put in the work, and pays the dues to be a head coach, and leads his kids to better themselves, but is not a teacher, then how can he not be qualified to be a good head coach!
|
|
bigcroz
Junior Member
Go STAGS!!
Posts: 356
|
Post by bigcroz on Mar 8, 2008 11:42:16 GMT -6
As Bluecrazy said, I have followed this post with great interst, as I am a HC that is not a teacher. I am however educated (2 Degrees) and "teaching" is a part of my job on a daily basis. I have no problem with a school wanting a teacher as the coach. As a kid it was unheard of for one of my coaches to not be a teacher in the building. This being said, we do not live in those times anymore. The majority of teachers, in my area anyway, do not want to put in the time that it takes to run a sucessful program in any sport. When the bells rings they are headed to the parking lot. When administrations run around touting that it "is all about the kids", then hire someone to coach those same kids who is not really qualified to do so, just because he fits the teaching opening that they have at that time, is an injustice to those same kids that they claim to be looking out for. I spend as much time, if not more asking my wife, with my players as I do my own kids. I am in the building everyday and the staff feels free to call me at anytime to discuss a players actions. I feel that teacher or not, a person is either qualified to run a program or they are not. The job of school administrators is to place our young people in the best learning environment as possible. When they choose to give the job to someone who is not qualified to be in that position they are not doing the job they were put in place to execute. IMO
Just my .02 guys
|
|
zbessac
Sophomore Member
Posts: 149
|
Post by zbessac on Mar 8, 2008 12:34:19 GMT -6
Well I think that everyone has made some great points on my original post. The way I am understanding it though is that everyone feels that a non-teacher would have no contact with teachers and other issues in school, but K said that he is in school and receives emails from teachers about his kids. Why couldn't a non teacher receive emails? I understand that a non teacher would have to work extra hard to get the whole community involved in the program and I would have to make sure that all teachers knew that I supported them 100%. The reason I made my original post was because at my alma mater (my dream coaching school, have wanted since the day I graduated) they have had 2 head coaches and one defensive coordinator, leave because they found administration jobs (can't an administrator and coach here), all in the last 5 years. I just felt like those coaches were teaching the kids that, well you were good enough to get me to where I wanted, but now I don't need ya now. I just think that maybe a guy like me or 100's others that have a non teaching job and are looking to not change jobs whats so ever, would be a little more accountable to the players. I dunno, maybe I am way off in that thought, but that is why I made the original post. Thank you everyone for your insight, it really has made me think a lot about the subject.
|
|
|
Post by bluecrazy on Mar 8, 2008 13:51:08 GMT -6
E-mail is how most Teachers-Administrators contact me. They do however also have my office-home-cell phone number. In this day and age of communication, you can always get a hold of someone at anytime.
|
|