Tx high school football coaching salary....

[Shakadoodoo]

I was kicking it with Garrick McGee last night (he coaches at Univ of Arkansas now) and he was telling me that some of those Texas high school football coaches make more than $100,000.00 a year - (we were talking about Highland Park specifically) I think that is Ridiculous! If the English teacher is not getting paid that much a year than why should the football coach get paid that much - in high school. I think that sends the wrong message to our kids. Do you all think high school football coaches should get paid that much?

[SoonerBacker]

Agree with you. The only way they should get that much is if the regular classroom teachers are getting paid something close. I would not say that the other teachers' should get the same exact salary, but it should be close. I understand that the coaches put in a lot of extra time away from home & family. They should be compensated. However, I doubt that the salary of classroom teachers is anywhere near that.

I would also like to know how that compares to the salaries of other coaches and teachers who sponsor extracurricular activities. After all, the coaches and spnsors spend just as much extra time away from home - if not more.

[meoveryouxinfinity]

My AP calculus teacher worked WAY harder than any football coach. She was there first thing in the morning, usually when only the janitors were there. Usually the last one to leave. She also taught probably the most advanced subject offered and had her degrees to prove it (Putnam City Schools does pay more--and a lot more--based on teacher's amount and level of degrees).

So I agree. No HS football coach should be brining in $100,000. Unless the AP Calc teacher is making ~$85,000.

PS Sam Bradford dropped out of her class the first week. She's fiesty.

[texaspokieokie]

that's definitely apples to oranges.

[Breadburner]

What do you think the head coach at Union makes.....

[Shakadoodoo]

that's definitely apples to oranges.

Are you sure? Good teachers work hard! If it were not for those teachers doing all the extra things to make sure our kids make the grade - they would never have the opportunity to play for the football coach in the first place. Especially if you are at a school with a lot of "at-risk" students. Some of the things that teachers are expected to do - compared to how much they get paid.... is crazy. Plus - I love sports so don't get me wrong - but math, science, ect...... is much more important than any football game.

[texaspokieokie]

yep, i'm sure.

[Shakadoodoo]

What do you think the head coach at Union makes.....

I have no idea. But I am sure he makes much more than the coach at McLain.

[SoonerBacker]

that's definitely apples to oranges.

What's apples to oranges? Anyone who thinks that classroom teachers just spend 6 to 7 hours a day at work and gets 2 1/2 months off every summer knows little about what a good teacher does. A regular classroom teacher takes a lot of work home in the evenings/weekends and spends a lot of time in the summer months preparing for the next school year. At least they do if they are a GOOD classroom teacher. And just like coaches, there are good ones and bad ones out there.

As I said before, I know that the coaches spend a little more of their time at work than the classroom teacher does, but not THAT much. They should be compensated appropriately for that extra time. However, they do not spend more time at work than a teacher who directs a band or sponsors any number of extracurricular activities.

I've been on both sides of this particular topic. I've coached and I have "just" been a classroom teacher. There's not that much difference in the amount of time spent working.

[texaspokieokie]

that's like saying a ditch digger should make as much as the ceo of ford
because he puts in the same hours.

i'm not bad mouthin teacher, (i couldn't put up with the crap that they do, from all these PERFECT children) but they know goin in about (approx)
how much they're make in their lifetime. they know they're not gonna get rich,
no matter how much the coaches make.

when i was young, teaches were grossly underpaid,but @ least they had security.taxpayers can't afford to pay everyone 100k.

my nephew just got promoted to full professor & he told me that would be the last pay raise he ever gets. he's a phd, & i'd be surprised if he makes 100k.

[Shakadoodoo]

that's like saying a ditch digger should make as much as the ceo of ford
because he puts in the same hours.

i'm not bad mouthin teacher, (i couldn't put up with the crap that they do, from all these PERFECT children) but they know goin in about (approx)
how much they're make in their lifetime. they know they're not gonna get rich,
no matter how much the coaches make.

when i was young, teaches were grossly underpaid,but @ least they had security.taxpayers can't afford to pay everyone 100k.

my nephew just got promoted to full professor & he told me that would be the last pay raise he ever gets. he's a phd, & i'd be surprised if he makes 100k.

True indeed, that is the reality of it. But it should not be that way - That money should be at least dispersed throughout all the extra curricular programs. When I coached wrestling at McLain - We had to get parents to help - just to get new warm ups. But the Basketball team looked like the University of McLain. Thats not right - and I know those sports make more money - but in high school that money should go back to help all kids - not just the football coach.

[SoonerBacker]

So you are comparing the coaches to the CEO of Ford and the classroom teacher to a ditch digger? Talk about apples and oranges!!! As I said, I have been a "regular" classroom teacher AND a coach. There is NOT that much difference in the 2 posititons.

Yes, I knew going in to the profession that I would never get rich. I am not complaining about my salary. Never have and never will. Nor am I saying that the taxpayers should pay everyone 100k. I am saying that a freakin high school football coach should not get that kind of a salary from the taxpayers, either. The coaches do not deserve that much more than a classroom teacher. Their salaries should be within a few thousand of each other. Not tens of thousands.

[texaspokieokie]

so that's your opinion, backed up by nothing.

my comparison was only to make a point, not comparing teachers to ditch diggers. (which, according to your logic ?? should make the same if the hours are the same) if a school wants to upgrade their team, they may have to pay more to hire what they think is a better coach. a better football team may raise the morale of the whole school & even the whole town.

should a calculus teacher @ OU make the same as Bob Stoops if they put in about the same hours ???

[Shakadoodoo]

so that's your opinion, backed up by nothing.

my comparison was only to make a point, not comparing teachers to ditch diggers. (which, according to your logic ?? should make the same if the hours are the same) if a school wants to upgrade their team, they may have to pay more to hire what they think is a better coach. a better football team may raise the morale of the whole school & even the whole town.

should a calculus teacher @ OU make the same as Bob Stoops if they put in about the same hours ???

Success raises the Moral of schools and towns and that can be accomplished in many more things than football. and...
Comparing college teachers to high school teachers is apples and oranges. Many teachers become college teachers when they retire. Much, much, much less stress. You don't have to deal with the parents in college.

[BajaOklahoma]

There are a couple of databases out that list the salaries of all Texas employees. Apparently I didn't save the link for the one I liked.
I did happen to look up the salarues for the football coaches in our district - around 70,000 if I am remembering correctly.

[EstablishedSooner1967]

most coaches in TX HS football make 80K+ and when you get to the big schools South Lake Carroll, Highland Park they do get into the 120K+ range. Much like college coaches make so much more than the English or History teacher.. I have yet to see 10K people come listen to them teach.. Additionally, a lot of high schools here in tx have indoor facilities. Must be nice.

[PLaw]

I was kicking it with Garrick McGee last night (he coaches at Univ of Arkansas now) and he was telling me that some of those Texas high school football coaches make more than $100,000.00 a year - (we were talking about Highland Park specifically) I think that is Ridiculous! If the English teacher is not getting paid that much a year than why should the football coach get paid that much - in high school. I think that sends the wrong message to our kids. Do you all think high school football coaches should get paid that much?

Link to the 2005 Texas HS 4A and 5A HC salaries:

http://www.statesman.com/sports/content/sports/highschools/index_salaries.html

You will need to open the pdf file through the "salaries for 4A and 5A coaches". You can probably add a 3-4% per year COLA inflation increase.

Boomer

[texaspokieokie]

Shaka,
do you mean moral or morale, or maybe both ??

you're using my "apples to oranges" point.

i don't see what teachers becoming college teachers has to do with coaching salaries.

it just takes more money to hire (or keep) a successful coach. as opposed to teachers who are being laid off, due to the economy.

it's kinda "supply & demand".

if really good coaches were everywhere, their salaries would probably go down.

[Shakadoodoo]

most coaches in TX HS football make 80K+ and when you get to the big schools South Lake Carroll, Highland Park they do get into the 120K+ range. Much like college coaches make so much more than the English or History teacher.. I have yet to see 10K people come listen to them teach.. Additionally, a lot of high schools here in tx have indoor facilities. Must be nice.

I never had a college teacher knocking at my door asking why I was not in class, like Coach Abel did when we missed practice. College coaching is a full time 24/7 job. It is different in college than in High school. But even in high school, it is true that 10K will not come to see them teach - but if the kids are not passing those classes - they "should" not be on the field for 10K people to watch.

[texaspokieokie]

not for me to say how much anyone should make.
for them all to be about the same, sounds kinda socialistic.

[texaspokieokie]

Shaka
totally agree with your last post.

[texaspokieokie]

Coach Abel didn't have that many kids to worry abou, like a regular professor or a football coach.

[Shakadoodoo]

Shaka,
do you mean moral or morale, or maybe both ??

you're using my "apples to oranges" point.

i don't see what teachers becoming college teachers has to do with coaching salaries.

it just takes more money to hire (or keep) a successful coach. as opposed to teachers who are being laid off, due to the economy.

it's kinda "supply & demand".

if really good coaches were everywhere, their salaries would probably go down.

All valid points. But it still seems like our priorities are all wrong. How can we tell the kids that School is 1st when our actions in those same institutions says otherwise?

[texaspokieokie]

Again, i agree !!

how do we justify Arod making about 25 mil/year when the Prez doesn't even make 1 mil. ??

[Ruf/Nek7]

High school coaches, just like college coaches, are getting higher salaries because success on the football field brings in good money. Look at Allen High school...they are building a 18,000 capacity stadium....that costs $60 million! They have been a solid program and therefore will bring in a profit. Just like OU football. I dont agree with these hightened salaries but success pays.

http://highschoolsportsblog.dallasnews.com/Allen%20Stadium.jpg

[meoveryouxinfinity]

High school coaches, just like college coaches, are getting higher salaries because success on the football field brings in good money. Look at Allen High school...they are building a 18,000 capacity stadium....that costs $60 million! They have been a solid program and therefore will bring in a profit. Just like OU football. I dont agree with these hightened salaries but success pays.

http://highschoolsportsblog.dallasnews.com/Allen%20Stadium.jpg

They need to split up that school. No way no how are those getting the best eduction they could be getting. PCO had about 5,000 kids in 3 grades, terrible school. --> PCO, PCW, and then PCN made 3 pretty decent schools, at least when they first split up. Now the area has kinda changed.

[SoonerBacker]

so that's your opinion, backed up by nothing.

my comparison was only to make a point, not comparing teachers to ditch diggers. (which, according to your logic ?? should make the same if the hours are the same) if a school wants to upgrade their team, they may have to pay more to hire what they think is a better coach. a better football team may raise the morale of the whole school & even the whole town.

should a calculus teacher @ OU make the same as Bob Stoops if they put in about the same hours ???


Again, talk about comparing apples and oranges! Now you are comparing an athletic program at OU (which brings in enough $$$$$ to support it AND all other athletic teams at OU) to a high school! The football program at OU receives ZERO tax dollars.

And you have stated YOUR opinion, also backed up by NOTHING. I have attemted to provide some support for my argument by pointing out the fact that teachers and high school coaches do basically the same work, and the same amount of it. You disagree with my opinion and claim that is backed by nothing. So let me ask you a question - How many hours have you spent in a classroom or coaching on a field/court of any type in a public school environment? I've done both. Have you?

My point about the teachers/ditch diggers (btw, YOU made the original anology, not me) is that the coaches and the classroom teachers do basically the same job. The classroom teacher is more likely to prepare someone to be the future CEO than the coach is. If it were not for the classroom teachers educating the athletes, NONE of them would be able to qualify for admission to a university.

[texaspokieokie]

Yep RUF/NEK

look @ that almost new stadium in NW Tarrant county.

irving has 3 fairly large hi schools, but their stadium is old. nothing like that thing in Allen.

maybe if one of the 3 in irving got a new,high-dollar coach, they could justify
a nice new(big) stadium.

[Ruf/Nek7]

They need to split up that school. No way no how are those getting the best eduction they could be getting. PCO had about 5,000 kids in 3 grades, terrible school. --> PCO, PCW, and then PCN made 3 pretty decent schools, at least when they first split up. Now the area has kinda changed.

Alot of schools in the DFW area ex. Plano schools, Southlake Carroll, Duncanville, are not necessarily opening new schools but opening seperate buildings for each age. That way they can still have their crop of athletes to choose from.

[Ruf/Nek7]

Yep RUF/NEK

look @ that almost new stadium in NW Tarrant county.

irving has 3 fairly large hi schools, but their stadium is old. nothing like that thing in Allen.

maybe if one of the 3 in irving got a new,high-dollar coach, they could justify
a nice new(big) stadium.

It's funny you mention Irving, i went to Irving Nimitz high school. At the time i was there, we had a coach who ranked in the top 10 of all time wins in Texas high school football. Irving Schools Stadium (ISS) was renovated a few years ago, but like you noted, still lacks what is needed...especially since they have 3 schools.

Alot of Irving's problems is that they do not have money...AT ALL! If you look at all these schools (for the exception of West Texas football) that have nice stadiums are wealthy areas.

[texaspokieokie]

SB
i realize how valuable teachers are. if you understood the english language you could see that i was not comparing teachers to ditch diggers or coaches to CEO of ford.

spent a lot of time in classrooms, buy only as a student.have a vague idea of what teachers do.

if coaches & teachers do basically the same job, then teachers should become coaches to get a pay raise.

it's not up to me to see what a person makes,that's someones decision
other than mine.

a successful football team will bring in more money for the school than
a conatant loser. thus the higher salary.

don't the best teachers make more than the bad teachers ??

[Ruf/Nek7]

Yep RUF/NEK

look @ that almost new stadium in NW Tarrant county.

What stadium are you referring to here? I now live in North Tarrant area.

[Jacie]

This debate goes on in staff rooms at every highschool in the country and it is related to the CEO/ditch digger thing.

One justification for the CEO/ditch digger salary disparity is that the CEO is in charge of a large corporation, answerable to a board of directors and indirectly, stockholders. His decisions affect whether the company makes a profit or loses value. But . . . if the toliets at his home are plugged by tree roots, he will pay some guy with little education and/or training $10/hour to take a shovel to his yard for hours of back-breaking work clearing it. I would guess once the job is done and the CEO is once more able to sit on the throne, he thinks the guy deserved a whole lot more but $10/hour was all he got.

Meanwhile, back at the local highschool, jocks in letter jackets prowl the halls looking for the next girl to swoon over them while the skinny kid who makes A's in all his classes (all of them AP or advanced courses) will never even talk to the girls that date the jocks. On the morning announcements the results of a game (assuming it was a win) are broadcast and everyone is encouraged to attend the pep rally next Thursday. And while some may think the jock will one day work for the skinny kid, the reality is the skinny kid will one day work in the R&D department of the corporation for the jock who is now the CEO.

I know coaches are revered by former players who extoll the virtues of the men who taught them the values that made them who they are, set em straight and put em on the right path. But there are some who wonder why at the highschool level some students get star treatment because they are taller, faster, stronger or have better hand/eye coordination than those who study, do their homework, pay attention in class and act respectful to English/math/social studies/foreign language teachers all the time. In other words, the reward system that ultimately produces a Michael Vick/Chad Ochocinco/Lebron James/Mark McGuire starts early and is there any wonder why? They are praised, coddled and given free passes from the moment they display athletic ability instead of brainpower. You never see cheerleaders at the science fair or traveling to a meet with the debate team.

The state of Texas has elevated this to it's pinnacle. See the thread about the school that just built a football stadium that would make some college coaches envious. No wonder there are so many college football players coming from Texas. Now try to imagine what life would be like if we did the same thing for the brainiacs, built special facilities, heaped loads of praise on these kids and had colleges recruiting against each other, offering them letters on intent and so on, just like is done for the jocks. Maybe there wouldn't be a problem with test scores and literacy if our society valued these things as much as a deep ball or slam dunk . . .

[texaspokieokie]

RUF/NEK
who was coach when you were there ??
i lived on Oakdale a long block west of Nimitz for 28 years.

i can picture the coach that was there @ that time, but can't think of his name. he lived about 2 blocks further west on Oakdale but moved a long time ago.

article about him in DMN a short while ago, has serious illness, but once again i can't remember what.

i've had several nieces & one nephew that went to Nimitz. had one niece (she died last week) that started there when Nimitz was very new.

[Ruf/Nek7]

The state of Texas has elevated this to it's pinnacle. See the thread about the school that just built a football stadium that would make some college coaches envious. No wonder there are so many college football players coming from Texas. Now try to imagine what life would be like if we did the same thing for the brainiacs, built special facilities, heaped loads of praise on these kids and had colleges recruiting against each other, offering them letters on intent and so on, just like is done for the jocks. Maybe there wouldn't be a problem with test scores and literacy if our society valued these things as much as a deep ball or slam dunk . . .

Then we would be like China!

[SoonerBacker]

SB
i realize how valuable teachers are. if you understood the english language you could see that i was not comparing teachers to ditch diggers or coaches to CEO of ford.

I do understand the English language. I also know what an analogy is. You made one..

spent a lot of time in classrooms, buy only as a student.have a vague idea of what teachers do.

The average student has no idea how much time and effort goes in to the preperation for a school day, much less a school year. Perhaps you were the exception.

if coaches & teachers do basically the same job, then teachers should become coaches to get a pay raise.

Or perhaps the salaries paid by the school district should be roughly equal. And NO, that is not socialistic! Equal pay for equal work is not socialism. Socailism says equal pay for all workers, regardless of qulaifications or effort.

it's not up to me to see what a person makes,that's someones decision
other than mine.

Unless you are a taxpayer who supports a public school system. Then, it is your business.

a successful football team will bring in more money for the school than
a conatant loser. thus the higher salary.

Unless it is different in Texas, the money does not go to the school system. It goes to the athletic department and cannot be used for anything else.

don't the best teachers make more than the bad teachers ??

No, at least not in Oklahoma! Salaries for teachers are based on what level of degree one holds and years experience. Nothing else.

[texaspokieokie]

the stadium in nw tarrant county is on 114, west of 287, i think.

[texaspokieokie]

SB

i give up. it's the law of the jungle.

[Ruf/Nek7]

RUF/NEK
who was coach when you were there ??
i lived on Oakdale a long block west of Nimitz for 28 years.

i can picture the coach that was there @ that time, but can't think of his name. he lived about 2 blocks further west on Oakdale but moved a long time ago.

article about him in DMN a short while ago, has serious illness, but once again i can't remember what.

i've had several nieces & one nephew that went to Nimitz. had one niece (she died last week) that started there when Nimitz was very new.

Sorry to hear about your niece. His name was Mike Farda and is now the AD at Maypearl ISD. He had a couple sons that played at Nimitz who played college ball and now coach as well.
He produced great talent...Michael Huff (Oakland Raider former Jim Thorpe winner at texass, Kenneth Thompson (former RB for osu), and another RB who's name escapes me but was the 5A leading rusher in Texas and tore his ACL against Trinity High School, but he still had a full ride to Wisconsin and later transferred to SFA i believe.

[Ruf/Nek7]

the stadium in nw tarrant county is on 114, west of 287, i think.

Right by Texas Motor Speedway? Oh yeah, thats the new Northwest ISD High School, Byron Nelson. The school itself is quite amazing too and should be noted seeing how we are comparing athletics to academics. This school is state of the art and would be a teacher's dream. They are basically rivals to Southlake so they had to go big!

Which reminds me, Southlake is now renovating their already ridiculous stadium for more seating and other amenities.

[PLaw]

the stadium in nw tarrant county is on 114, west of 287, i think.

Are you talking about Northwest High School? It is located on Hwy 114 just West of Hwy 156. It seats around 8,000 and has press box with a couple of luxury suites that can be rented for special events.

My son plays there and it's a nice stadium. They probably average 4500-5000 for most home games. Typically, 4A and lower schools schedule a couple of play-off games each week through the "area" bracket.

BOOMER

[Ruf/Nek7]

PLaw,
I was thinking the same thing, either Northwest High or Northwest ISD's new school Byron Nelson

[Leroy Lizard]

that's definitely apples to oranges.

No, they're both classified as certificated employees and should be paid on a set salary schedule. If high school coaches are making more than the teaching staff, someone should be screaming.

Our schools are desperate for math and science teachers, yet schools cannot attract them because they have to be paid the same as any other teacher. (Some schools offer incentives, but we're only talking about maybe an extra $2,000 per year.) But the coaches make $100,000 per year? Something's wrong.


i realize how valuable teachers are. if you understood the english language you could see that i was not comparing teachers to ditch diggers or coaches to CEO of ford.

spent a lot of time in classrooms, buy only as a student.have a vague idea of what teachers do.

if coaches & teachers do basically the same job, then teachers should become coaches to get a pay raise.

it's not up to me to see what a person makes,that's someones decision
other than mine.

a successful football team will bring in more money for the school than
a conatant loser. thus the higher salary.

don't the best teachers make more than the bad teachers ??

Amazing. Nothing you posted here is anything close to factual.

[PLaw]

PLaw,
I was thinking the same thing, either Northwest High or Northwest ISD's new school Byron Nelson


Byron Nelson will play their varsity games at the NWISD stadium on Hwy 114. The BNHS campus does not have a varsity football stadium. That said, the JV stadium is probably nicer than most 3A or lower division facilities.

BOOMER

[picasso]

Are you sure? Good teachers work hard! If it were not for those teachers doing all the extra things to make sure our kids make the grade - they would never have the opportunity to play for the football coach in the first place. Especially if you are at a school with a lot of "at-risk" students. Some of the things that teachers are expected to do - compared to how much they get paid.... is crazy. Plus - I love sports so don't get me wrong - but math, science, ect...... is much more important than any football game.

If you want to make a lot of money then don't be a school teacher.

[oudavid1]

I have numerous teachers in my family, i have alot of friends who parents are teachers and alot of personal friends who are going into teaching.

My point i will make is, i think 50,000 is not alot of money to most but what teachers should make (even though most dont). And coaches should make however much the athletic department brings in. AP Calc teachers dont sell tickets and get 3000 people together on a friday night (Putnam North, were i went average 2,700 people a game last year and we weren't great). Your worth as much as you bring in. here is my reasons while teaching is not difficult

Public School (all i've ever known)

-No immediate oversight (your boss is not in the room)
-Make your own classroom rules
-Make your own course plan
-individual exam and grading systems (some teachers gave 1 test, others gave 15 or 20 a semester)
-Standard schedule and work that is easy to take home(8-5pm mon-friday)
-very few mandatory weekends
-All major holidays off
-2 months off in Summer (I know some teach summer school, but they dont do it for free)
-2 weeks off for christmas
-There own private office to some extent (classroom)

I dealt with a lot of "poor educators" in my time and alot of great ones. There are plenty of great teachers out there and i wish they could make more. But coaches bring in money, so it is defiantly fair to me.

I am most welcome to any thoughts or rebuttals....

[Leroy Lizard]

I have numerous teachers in my family, i have alot of friends who parents are teachers and alot of personal friends who are going into teaching.

My point i will make is, i think 50,000 is not alot of money to most but what teachers should make (even though most dont). And coaches should make however much the athletic department brings in.

At the high school level, most of these coaches wouldn't be paid at all.

Whoops!


AP Calc teachers dont sell tickets and get 3000 people together on a friday night (Putnam North, were i went average 2,700 people a game last year and we weren't great). Your worth as much as you bring in. here is my reasons while teaching is not difficult

Can we send the coaches the bill for the electricity to light the stadium, the equipment costs, insurance fees?

You're nuts if you think sports brings in money at most high schools.

Just do the math: 3000 spectators X 5 home games per year X $20 per ticket = $300,000. Bwahahaha!!!! That wouldn't even pay the staff, not alone operating expenses.

And that's football. You have to somehow pay the track coach, the basketball coach... Even if the football team managed to make a profit (doubtful), the other sports don't. You plan to pay them coaches at all?

To pay coaches based on the amount of revenue they bring in doesn't work. The coaches in this country would never go for such an idea, because they know that if they did they would starve.

[Leroy Lizard]

If you want to make a lot of money then don't be a school teacher.

Sure, that goes without saying. But that doesn't exactly address the inequity. We can't have a society where no one wants to teach calculus and everyone wants to be a coach.

[mehip]

Our schools are desperate for math and science teachers, yet schools cannot attract them because they have to be paid the same as any other teacher. ..... Something's wrong.


It's the Spicoli Effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Spicoli) IMO. In our culture as a whole it is has become cool to be an illiterate idiot. Hell, even those of us who are scientist and engineers are expected to be socially withdrawn and awkward; there seems to be little room in our perception of people for well rounded individuals.

[TMcGee86]

Most of the head coaches I know here in TX are also the AD. So not only do they get paid to coach the football team, they get paid to run the entire athletic department.

My old HS coach makes just below 100k. I think he is at 91k. And that's at a 3A school. But he's also the AD.

Taking this into the equation, the more apt comparison should be with principal and other administrative salaries. And from my experience, it's very comparable.

The rest of the coaches all teach classes. So they should get paid more than a regular teacher because they do more work.

[picasso]

Sure, that goes without saying. But that doesn't exactly address the inequity. We can't have a society where no one wants to teach calculus and everyone wants to be a coach.

Last time I checked, we don't have that problem. In fact, we're firing teachers right now.

I'm an artist, I knew when I signed up I could potentially struggle and perhaps never make any money.

[Leroy Lizard]

Most of the head coaches I know here in TX are also the AD. So not only do they get paid to coach the football team, they get paid to run the entire athletic department.

My old HS coach makes just below 100k. I think he is at 91k. And that's at a 3A school. But he's also the AD.

Taking this into the equation, the more apt comparison should be with principal and other administrative salaries. And from my experience, it's very comparable.

The rest of the coaches all teach classes. So they should get paid more than a regular teacher because they do more work.

That would be understandable as long as they are required to hold an administrative credential like other administrators. Not sure if that's the case.

[Dan Thompson]

Do Texas High School football programs, like the one in this discussion, bring money into the school or do they operate at a loss?

[Leroy Lizard]

Last time I checked, we don't have that problem. In fact, we're firing teachers right now.

Sure, but in better times we had this problem. So it's there. It's just that the current economy has buried it momentarily.


I'm an artist, I knew when I signed up I could potentially struggle and perhaps never make any money.

Public education does not operate on free market principles. It can't.

[Leroy Lizard]

Do Texas High School football programs, like the one in this discussion, bring money into the school or do they operate at a loss?

I doubt any athletic program at a public high school is truly self-sufficient. I don't see how it is even possible.

Look at the figures I presented. A $300,000 income is atrocious and wouldn't even pay the staff. Maybe the rest of the sports combine for $100,000, but even that won't cut it.

[picasso]

Public education does not operate on free market principles. It can't.

No **** Sherlock.

[mehip]

Last time I checked, we don't have that problem. In fact, we're firing teachers right now.

I'm an artist, I knew when I signed up I could potentially struggle and perhaps never make any money.

As a nation we have a tremendous problem. We have and continue follow behind Europe, S.E. Asia, and India in Math and Science. If we can't start to hold our own we are toast.

[picasso]

As a nation we have a tremendous problem. We have and continue follow behind Europe, S.E. Asia, and India in Math and Science. If we can't start to hold our own we are toast.

I completely agree. So the solution is to pay the teachers more?

[yankee]

Alot of schools in the DFW area ex. Plano schools, Southlake Carroll, Duncanville, are not necessarily opening new schools but opening seperate buildings for each age. That way they can still have their crop of athletes to choose from.

Southlake has ALWAYS been one of the smaller 5a schools in each of their districts. We have no need to split Carroll high school because it would be pointless. It would probably creat a 3A and a 2A school.


They are basically rivals to Southlake so they had to go big!

Which reminds me, Southlake is now renovating their already ridiculous stadium for more seating and other amenities.

Ha, they are definitely not rivals.
The stadium needed more seating...we've sold out the home side for years...however 1600 additional seats is a little too much IMO. We also got a new sound system because our previous one was hated by Carroll fans and foes alike. Worst thing EVAR. Oh and we're getting a video scoreboard, which we didn't have previously. So all in all, none of them are excessive...you could maybe make a case for the amount of seats but that's it.

[Leroy Lizard]

No **** Sherlock.

Then why did you drag your crappy income into the discussion into the first place? We don't give a **** how little you get paid.

[Leroy Lizard]

I completely agree. So the solution is to pay the teachers more?

That's one that has been offered. I'm not sure it is viable. But if math and science teachers were paid on average $400,000 per year we would have plenty of math and science teachers. The problem is that we are talking about an additional incentive of maybe $2,000 per year, which I don't think will do the trick.

Higher pay won't make the existing teachers better. But it would allow school districts to squeeze out the bad ones. At least, that's the theory.

[ndpruitt03]

You could say that college coaches don't deserve to make millions of dollars but they still do. It would be anti-american to say someone doesn't deserve that. Although it does describe a lot of the problems we have with schools when administrators and sports coaches are getting 6 figures. Regular teachers are getting about the lower end of the pay scale.

[picasso]

Then why did you drag your crappy income into the discussion into the first place? We don't give a **** how little you get paid.

I was making a point that you know what you're getting into before you take the job, dip****.
I make plenty of money in bunches but it's not a given that I will. I knew that when I signed on. I didn't start up and 3 years later say, crap man that guy makes more than I do and and I work more hours and my job is sooooo important.

:rolleyes:

[Ruf/Nek7]

Southlake has ALWAYS been one of the smaller 5a schools in each of their districts. We have no need to split Carroll high school because it would be pointless. It would probably creat a 3A and a 2A school.

I made that comment as a response to someone mentioning that its a concern for growing schools are not meeting expectations academically. Not good to have thousands of kids in one building. Therefore, i was simply using some schools that do NOT open new high schools but open buildings under their name for a specified age group. For example, Carroll High (9-10 graders) and Carroll Senior High (11-12 graders) but any age group can play for Southlake Carroll.

[ashley]

Sure head coaches deserve their salary. They work many more days and many more hours than a teacher. I could go on and on. Some people have no idea. Plus, coaches are hired for makket value like college coaches and movie stars. Teachers are not. Coaches get fired and teachers don't.

[ashley]

I doubt any athletic program at a public high school is truly self-sufficient. I don't see how it is even possible.

Look at the figures I presented. A $300,000 income is atrocious and wouldn't even pay the staff. Maybe the rest of the sports combine for $100,000, but even that won't cut it.

Give me your estimate of what % of a school budget goes to athletics. Salaries, equipment, maintenance, and anything else you can think of. It all depends on how much your community values the athletic experience. I am anxious to get your reply.

[Leroy Lizard]

I was making a point that you know what you're getting into before you take the job, dip****.

So what if they did? So what?

This is about the community (district) setting up pay scales that allow it to attract quality teachers so that their kids go on to become successful. Of what relevance is it whether teachers knew the pay scales beforehand?

And cut the insults. There's no need for that crap.


Sure head coaches deserve their salary. They work many more days and many more hours than a teacher. I could go on and on. Some people have no idea. Plus, coaches are hired for makket value like college coaches and movie stars. Teachers are not. Coaches get fired and teachers don't.

1. Coaches are not paid according to the revenue they generate. Not at all. Not even close. If what you said is true, the track coach wouldn't be paid at all, even at the university level.

2. Coaches do not work more hours than teachers unless they have a teaching load on top of their coaching. (And teachers often perform out-of-class duties as well.)

3. Coaches at the high school level are usually hired as credentialed staff and have the same due process rights as teachers.

Coaches are highly paid because society places greater emphasis on winning in sports than educating students. The local town has had great success in football; the coach will command a big salary no matter how many people turn out for the game. The school board simply doesn't want to face election having turned down a winning coach's demand for a salary increase. It has nothing to do with revenue, because sports is not profitable at the high school level (and rarely profitable at the college level).

Having said that, if a coach is acting as an AD then things change.

[picasso]

Then why did you drag your crappy income into the discussion into the first place? We don't give a **** how little you get paid.

This isn't an insult?

[Leroy Lizard]

Give me your estimate of what % of a school budget goes to athletics. Salaries, equipment, maintenance, and anything else you can think of. It all depends on how much your community values the athletic experience. I am anxious to get your reply.

It makes no difference. The cost of athletics is clear. The amount of revenue it bring in is clear. For sports to make money (the argument being offered here), the amount of revenue has to be greater than the cost. And I see no way in Hell that is true at any high school.

To cut costs, schools are now requiring kids to pay for play. Doesn't sound very self-sufficient to me.

[SoonerBacker]

Sure head coaches deserve their salary. They work many more days and many more hours than a teacher. I could go on and on. Some people have no idea. Plus, coaches are hired for makket value like college coaches and movie stars. Teachers are not. Coaches get fired and teachers don't.

Total BS!
1.) Teachers spend more time in the classroom at the high school level than coaches do. Teachers also sponsor non-athletic extracurricular activities. Teachers have more to do in the way of grading papers and preperation for a school day than coaches, just due to the fact that they have more students per day and more courses to prepare for. (Note: I am talking about good teachers. As I have already stated, there are good ones and bad ones, just as there are good and bad coaches.) Some people have no idea how much time teachers spend at home doing the work necessary to be ready for 5 to 6 classrooms full of teenagers.

2.) Teachers don't get fired? Where are you living! The State of Oklahoma is laying teachers off left and right due to the decrease in tax revenues in this state. As a result, class sizes are on the increase. That means less one-on-one instruction per student.

3.) There seem to be a lot of people who think that the average teacher just walks into a classroom without any preperation or care for their students. There are a lot of teachers who spend their own money to provide things for their students. I have seen many buy coats for kids in the winter who would otherwise not have a coat. I have seen teachers pay for students to be able to participate in the extracurricular events that go on in a school. I have seen many teachers buy lunches for kids and take the time to spend extra hours with students to provide tutoring that they were not required to provide. I am aware of teachers who have spent their own money to go and see their former students graduate from Marine Corps boot camp AFTER they have graduated from high school. The prevailing theory here that coaches care and teachers don't is a load of excrement.


As I stated early on in this thread, I am not complaining about my salary. I also believe that coaches deserve compensation for the extra time they do put in. I do not believe, however, that they deserve more than any other sponsor of extracurricular activites. Nor do I believe that their extra compensation should take their salary into the 6 figure area unless the average teacher makes something close to that.


I am obviously not going to sway anyone's opinion here, but it is certainly interesting to see people displaying their priorities.

[oudavid1]

At the high school level, most of these coaches wouldn't be paid at all.

????


Can we send the coaches the bill for the electricity to light the stadium, the equipment costs, insurance fees?

You're nuts if you think sports brings in money at most high schools.

Just do the math: 3000 spectators X 5 home games per year X $20 per ticket = $300,000. Bwahahaha!!!! That wouldn't even pay the staff, not alone operating expenses.

We shared a stadium with three other schools, and we were not that good

The coach i had dosnt make that much, but a coach with a 6000 person audience.


And that's football. You have to somehow pay the track coach, the basketball coach... Even if the football team managed to make a profit (doubtful), the other sports don't. You plan to pay them coaches at all?

To pay coaches based on the amount of revenue they bring in doesn't work. The coaches in this country would never go for such an idea, because they know that if they did they would starve.


And you forgot boosters, alot of boosters. And football money stays with football. My team recently got a 4.1 million dollar locker and training facility.



So i humbly disagree.

[Leroy Lizard]

????

If coaches are paid according to revenue, and their teams don't net any revenue...



We shared a stadium with three other schools, and we were not that good

The coach i had dosnt make that much, but a coach with a 6000 person audience.


He might be able to break even.

This is an expensive sport.


And you forgot boosters, alot of boosters. And football money stays with football. My team recently got a 4.1 million dollar locker and training facility.

That argument holds in some communities. But in others there are no boosters because the community has no money. (I doubt it's legal to supplement the income of a coach with booster money, since he is a state employee.)

[TMcGee86]

Total BS!
1.) Teachers spend more time in the classroom at the high school level than coaches do. Teachers also sponsor non-athletic extracurricular activities. Teachers have more to do in the way of grading papers and preperation for a school day than coaches, just due to the fact that they have more students per day and more courses to prepare for. (Note: I am talking about good teachers. As I have already stated, there are good ones and bad ones, just as there are good and bad coaches.) Some people have no idea how much time teachers spend at home doing the work necessary to be ready for 5 to 6 classrooms full of teenagers.

2.) Teachers don't get fired? Where are you living! The State of Oklahoma is laying teachers off left and right due to the decrease in tax revenues in this state. As a result, class sizes are on the increase. That means less one-on-one instruction per student.

3.) There seem to be a lot of people who think that the average teacher just walks into a classroom without any preperation or care for their students. There are a lot of teachers who spend their own money to provide things for their students. I have seen many buy coats for kids in the winter who would otherwise not have a coat. I have seen teachers pay for students to be able to participate in the extracurricular events that go on in a school. I have seen many teachers buy lunches for kids and take the time to spend extra hours with students to provide tutoring that they were not required to provide. I am aware of teachers who have spent their own money to go and see their former students graduate from Marine Corps boot camp AFTER they have graduated from high school. The prevailing theory here that coaches care and teachers don't is a load of excrement.


As I stated early on in this thread, I am not complaining about my salary. I also believe that coaches deserve compensation for the extra time they do put in. I do not believe, however, that they deserve more than any other sponsor of extracurricular activites. Nor do I believe that their extra compensation should take their salary into the 6 figure area unless the average teacher makes something close to that.


I am obviously not going to sway anyone's opinion here, but it is certainly interesting to see people displaying their priorities.

I think one of the problems here is you are basing your argument on OK teachers and the thread was about TX teachers/coaches.

Here in TX, no coaches are hired that do not also teach class.

So actually the coaches do put in more hours than the teachers, and they are compensated accordingly, which is usually about a 5k stipend.

And as I said before, the head coaches that don't teach are AD's. It's that way at nearly every school including Highland Park. Coach Allen (whom I know personally from his days at Cooper) is the AD.

So again, to say that a head coach isn't worth the money of a teacher is like saying a principal isn't worth the money of a teacher.

[TMcGee86]

That argument holds in some communities. But in others there are no boosters because the community has no money. (I doubt it's legal to supplement the income of a coach with booster money, since he is a state employee.)

I would be willing to bet you wont find any 100k coaches in those communities.

Not all coaches get paid like this, just the ones in gigantic schools, or exceptionally wealthy schools like Highland Park.

[oklaclarinet]

I think one of the problems here is you are basing your argument on OK teachers and the thread was about TX teachers/coaches.

Here in TX, no coaches are hired that do not also teach class.

So actually the coaches do put in more hours than the teachers, and they are compensated accordingly, which is usually about a 5k stipend.

And as I said before, the head coaches that don't teach are AD's. It's that way at nearly every school including Highland Park. Coach Allen (whom I know personally from his days at Cooper) is the AD.

So again, to say that a head coach isn't worth the money of a teacher is like saying a principal isn't worth the money of a teacher.

It works the same way in Oklahoma. All teachers receive the base pay based on experience and degree (there is a state minimum scale, but a district may establish a higher pay scale). All extra pay is extra duty pay. These are the stipends for being a football coach, basketball coach, band director, choir director, academic team coach, yearbook advisor, bus driver, etc. In theory this extra pay is the stipend for time spent above and beyond the time of a regular classroom teacher (since in theory, all teachers have the same amount of duty in their roles as a classroom teacher, but in reality we know that isn't true - but another debate).

So in Oklahoma, and I would assume Texas as well then, if a coach makes a higher salary, it's through this extra duty pay. It is my experience that this extra duty pay is where things get really unequal. So the head football coach gets an extra $6,000 for being the head football coach. He also gets another stipend for being the weightlifting coach, and another for any other sport with which he "assists," plus a driver's ed stipend, and so on. Most coaches have multiple stipends to stack. Meanwhile, the assistant band director gets a stipend of $1,000-$2,000, and that covers all the rehearsals in the summer, marching band practices in the fall, contests on Saturdays following the Friday night football games, honor bands, solo contests, basketball pep bands, concerts, etc. I would guarantee that job takes much more time yet the stipend is significantly less.

[TMcGee86]

It works the same way in Oklahoma. All teachers receive the base pay based on experience and degree (there is a state minimum scale, but a district may establish a higher pay scale). All extra pay is extra duty pay. These are the stipends for being a football coach, basketball coach, band director, choir director, academic team coach, yearbook advisor, bus driver, etc. In theory this extra pay is the stipend for time spent above and beyond the time of a regular classroom teacher (since in theory, all teachers have the same amount of duty in their roles as a classroom teacher, but in reality we know that isn't true - but another debate).

So in Oklahoma, and I would assume Texas as well then, if a coach makes a higher salary, it's through this extra duty pay. It is my experience that this extra duty pay is where things get really unequal. So the head football coach gets an extra $6,000 for being the head football coach. He also gets another stipend for being the weightlifting coach, and another for any other sport with which he "assists," plus a driver's ed stipend, and so on. Most coaches have multiple stipends to stack. Meanwhile, the assistant band director gets a stipend of $1,000-$2,000, and that covers all the rehearsals in the summer, marching band practices in the fall, contests on Saturdays following the Friday night football games, honor bands, solo contests, basketball pep bands, concerts, etc. I would guarantee that job takes much more time yet the stipend is significantly less.


Very true. But then again, without football there would be no band. Unfortunate reality.

[oklaclarinet]

Very true. But then again, without football there would be no band. Unfortunate reality.

Not true. There are several schools in Oklahoma with no football teams but that do have bands. Plus, you forget that football is an extracirricular activity, while band is cocirricular. After all, they have PASS standards for the arts, but not athletics.

[TMcGee86]

Not true. There are several schools in Oklahoma with no football teams but that do have bands. Plus, you forget that football is an extracirricular activity, while band is cocirricular. After all, they have PASS standards for the arts, but not athletics.

Good point. I stand corrected. I was thinking more in a general sense and only of marching band.

[Leroy Lizard]

I would be willing to bet you wont find any 100k coaches in those communities.

True, but that is somewhat beside the point.

[GKeeper316]

the biggest difference between oklahoma and texas (in terms of coaching) is that in the state of oklahoma, the head coach of any sport at the high school level must be a teacher on staff with the district he coaches in.

[Leroyt]

Just do the math: 3000 spectators X 5 home games per year X $20 per ticket = $300,000. Bwahahaha!!!! That wouldn't even pay the staff, not alone operating expenses.


My high school (Temple, Tx - population 50k, 5A school) has a stadium that seats 11,500. Our district averages 8800 seats at each school. I doubt that football clears a profit, but you should consider that most of these big salaries are at 5A schools with big houses. There are 10 schools in Tx (some shared in metros) that seat 16500 or more, for context. http://www.texasbob.com/stadium/cap_index.php

[ashley]

Give me your estimate of what % of a school budget goes to athletics. Salaries, equipment, maintenance, and anything else you can think of. It all depends on how much your community values the athletic experience. I am anxious to get your reply.

It will vary, depending on the size of the district of course. About 1.4 to 1.8%.

[TMcGee86]

the biggest difference between oklahoma and texas (in terms of coaching) is that in the state of oklahoma, the head coach of any sport at the high school level must be a teacher on staff with the district he coaches in.

I actually think it's the same in Texas, unless the HC is also the AD. Which is the case prob 90% of the time.

[47straight]

The only reason having a (slightly) higher salary for a football coach (AD issues notwithstanding) seems reasonable is that, as someone else pointed out, football coaches actually can and do get fired.

I'd be willing to pay teachers 80k a year if you could fire the worst 10% every year, Jack Welsh style.

[OUTrumpet]

Assistants can make anywhere from $8,000 - $20,000 based on the school, experience, and position (i.e. an offensive coordinator > quarterback coach). You are expected to teach on top of that, so you do receive a teacher's salary because coaching is 100% overtime work. You're going to put in 50-60 hours a week teaching alone and then tack on working an extra 4 hours a day coaching, plus maybe 5 hours for film on Saturday, and maybe 3-8 hours on Sunday scouting opposition.

Head coach is a different ball game. A lot of head coaches are either the AD or assistant A.D. on top of coaching. There is a state law that says the superintendent must be the highest salary person in the district. Some schools get around this by paying their coach $1 less than the superintendent. A prime example of that would be Todd Dodge from before he was at UNT.

[OUTrumpet]

Total BS!
1.) Teachers spend more time in the classroom at the high school level than coaches do. Teachers also sponsor non-athletic extracurricular activities. Teachers have more to do in the way of grading papers and preperation for a school day than coaches, just due to the fact that they have more students per day and more courses to prepare for. (Note: I am talking about good teachers. As I have already stated, there are good ones and bad ones, just as there are good and bad coaches.) Some people have no idea how much time teachers spend at home doing the work necessary to be ready for 5 to 6 classrooms full of teenagers.

Coming from a coach that works in the Dallas area for a team that made the 2nd round of the playoffs - that is entirely false.

I was expected to teach 135 students daily in 6 classes. On top of that making sure that they had a place to go during season if they needed tutoring.

I would frequently work from 6:30 am till 9pm at night Monday - Thursday. Gamedays would typically be 6:30 till whenever the last parent picked up their child on Friday night - could be midnight, could be 2am. One away game didn't get home till 4am. Yet I was back at it at 9am the next day.

Why? Because I love making a positive difference in these children's lives.

[Leroy Lizard]

The only reason having a (slightly) higher salary for a football coach (AD issues notwithstanding) seems reasonable is that, as someone else pointed out, football coaches actually can and do get fired.


So do teachers.

[oklaclarinet]

Coming from a coach that works in the Dallas area for a team that made the 2nd round of the playoffs - that is entirely false.

I was expected to teach 135 students daily in 6 classes. On top of that making sure that they had a place to go during season if they needed tutoring.

I would frequently work from 6:30 am till 9pm at night Monday - Thursday. Gamedays would typically be 6:30 till whenever the last parent picked up their child on Friday night - could be midnight, could be 2am. One away game didn't get home till 4am. Yet I was back at it at 9am the next day.

Why? Because I love making a positive difference in these children's lives.

Which is why I have no problem with coaches getting extra stipends. My thought though is that you should pay equal stipends for other additionally duties such as band director, choir director, academic team coach, yearbook sponsor, etc. that put in just as much extra time as coaches. My issue is when the football coach at a school gets a stipend that is significantly higher than other stipends.

(For example, when a coach of a football team that hasn't had a winning record in years has a stipend that is higher than the combined stipends of a head and assistant band director of a program that has competed on the national level recently, something is wrong. Especially when the two cars of those directors are two of the last three to leave the lot everyday, the other being the gifted/talented coordinator/elementary academic team coach's car.)

[OUTrumpet]

Which is why I have no problem with coaches getting extra stipends. My thought though is that you should pay equal stipends for other additionally duties such as band director, choir director, academic team coach, yearbook sponsor, etc. that put in just as much extra time as coaches. My issue is when the football coach at a school gets a stipend that is significantly higher than other stipends.

(For example, when a coach of a football team that hasn't had a winning record in years has a stipend that is higher than the combined stipends of a head and assistant band director of a program that has competed on the national level recently, something is wrong. Especially when the two cars of those directors are two of the last three to leave the lot everyday, the other being the gifted/talented coordinator/elementary academic team coach's car.)

Yearbook, band director, choir director all end up being their own position though. The only football coach that ends up not having to teach extra on top of their coaching is typically the head coach, and that's because he ends up being the athletic director as well. The only thing I've seen that's close is working with the marching band and not as much off-season is needed (try working with summer conditioning / weight lifting and monitoring the volunteer 7-7, 5-4 drills, and whatever else the players want to do.

The head football coach at my school practically lives there in-season (he has installed cots, stove/microwave/refrigerator in the coaching facility) and out of season he's probably putting in about 60 hours a week.

[Shakadoodoo]

Coming from a coach that works in the Dallas area for a team that made the 2nd round of the playoffs - that is entirely false.

I was expected to teach 135 students daily in 6 classes. On top of that making sure that they had a place to go during season if they needed tutoring.

I would frequently work from 6:30 am till 9pm at night Monday - Thursday. Gamedays would typically be 6:30 till whenever the last parent picked up their child on Friday night - could be midnight, could be 2am. One away game didn't get home till 4am. Yet I was back at it at 9am the next day.

Why? Because I love making a positive difference in these children's lives.

That's good stuff - A huge salary makes that all better. Here in Oklahoma you have to teach if you are going to be a coach. As a wrestling coach, we do the same amount of work as well as 1-3 duals a week, weekend wrestling tournaments while still working with the feeder programs. we make an extra 6,000 a year before taxes. If all coaches are putting in this amount of work then they should all get the same type of money. I just read that the Union coach gets $90,000.00. Now I am sure the wrestling coach at Union Schools gets paid more than we did at McLain but I am sure that it is nowhere close to $90,000. My only point is that the payment should not be so lopsided. Every teacher that puts in extra time to make sure these kids succeed should be compensated for it - if the school can afford to pay those type a salaries. Everyone from the Band teacher - Science Club teacher to the football coach. Just because they happen to coach a sport that makes more money then any other does not make them better coaches/teachers so they should not get paid that much more than all the others.

Now I am not complaining because I realize that it is just a fact of life/rules of the jungle. I do not do it for the money - as a matter a fact I always made sure I was at the schools that good male teachers were needed the most and that would not be schools like Jenks and Union - they have plenty of good teachers there. I am needed in the neighborhoods that have no male role models, parental support, ect.... So I know for a fact I would never make that much money - we simply do not have it. It was just shocking to see high school coaches making more than doctors - I had no Idea people even expected to get paid that much.

[ouleaf]

When you get into the big 5A Texas HS Football teams scattered around the DFW Metroplex, the schools and school districts aren't just making money off ticket sales alone. They are marketing machines that generate lots of dough....Just like OU there are naming rights to stadiums, complexes, training centers, etc. They also collect checks off advertising from corporate sponsors. I'd imagine they also cut deals with equipment companies like Nike, Reebok, Under Armour, etc. There is also money to be made for the rights to broadcast the games on radio and in some cases national tv. There are also concession stands and in some cases vendor booths that are charged a fee so they they can set up and sell their own merchandise. All these go back to the school districts general fund, which helps pay for expenses district wide that may not be covered simply by tax payers money alone.

Then you also have booster clubs that do their own fund-raising and those funds can be directly applied to a schools athletic department as well.

All that money is generated as a result of a winning program. The best teams want the best coach to help keep them winning. To get the best coach comes at a price however, and thus their salary is higher. A coach with a winning program brings in money for the school and the school district plain and simple. It's the same as it is in the business world. You pay the employee that brings the company more money in the hopes that they will continue to bring in even more. English teachers don't bring in money and thus they are not paid as much. It has nothing to do with how many hours are put in, who works harder, who is the better educator, etc. It all has to do with money.

[oklaclarinet]

Yearbook, band director, choir director all end up being their own position though. The only football coach that ends up not having to teach extra on top of their coaching is typically the head coach, and that's because he ends up being the athletic director as well. The only thing I've seen that's close is working with the marching band and not as much off-season is needed (try working with summer conditioning / weight lifting and monitoring the volunteer 7-7, 5-4 drills, and whatever else the players want to do.

The head football coach at my school practically lives there in-season (he has installed cots, stove/microwave/refrigerator in the coaching facility) and out of season he's probably putting in about 60 hours a week.

Own position or not, many of the classes a band director, choir director, or yearbook teacher teaches are not related to the after school part of the activity. For example, at my school, the yearbook advisor also is the high school academic team coach, and she teaches a full load of English classes. The two band directors between them have to cover the high school band, 7th grade band, 6th grade band, 5th grade music, high school choir, music appreciation, applied music, color guard, music theory, and jazz band (which is after school and not part of the schedule). Each of these classes has it's own unique lesson plan, and none of it save the high school band period and sometimes the color guard class applies to the after school hours for marching band. Just like the coach can't (or shouldn't) take up a social studies class game planning, the band director can't use beginning band time to arrange music for the high school band.

Now I don't doubt that there are coaches that put in time that is worth a bunch of money. My point is that other teachers put in as much time and are rewarded with just a fraction of the same money.

As for the time involved for marching band, bands in Oklahoma typically put in a bunch of work in the summer (of course, they are allowed to, whereas football is prohibited from practicing before a certain date). Doesn't change the fact that on a typical July day at my school the band and the directors are usually the only ones around.

[Serge Ibaka]

I agree that high football coaching salaries are offensive to good teachers (many of whom put in just as much time as football coaches while receiving 1/3 of the pay; note oklaclarinet's post above).

Of course, most football coaches are teachers themselves. And most of them probably make the same coaching-stipend as coaches of other sports. And this is how it should be.

Still, I understand that there are schools that have very successful football programs which bring a lot of money back into the school. And this is great, but I think it's ludicrous that the school should invest highly in their football programs in a way that suggests superiority for its football program and its players.

Consider the 18,000 person stadium posted earlier in this thread: is it necessary, and is the school actually experiencing some sort of economic return (gain?) from that investment? I doubt it, and I think that is much more about football tradition and winning (technically meaningless) football games.

Schools need to remain unbiased, and the school needs to at least pretend that they care as much about the tuba player as they do the starting tail-back.

[SoonerBacker]

Coming from a coach that works in the Dallas area for a team that made the 2nd round of the playoffs - that is entirely false.

I was expected to teach 135 students daily in 6 classes. On top of that making sure that they had a place to go during season if they needed tutoring.

I would frequently work from 6:30 am till 9pm at night Monday - Thursday. Gamedays would typically be 6:30 till whenever the last parent picked up their child on Friday night - could be midnight, could be 2am. One away game didn't get home till 4am. Yet I was back at it at 9am the next day.

Why? Because I love making a positive difference in these children's lives.

Not in Oklahoma, it's not. I am the head of the Social Studies Dept at out school. There are only 2 members of the staff in our department who are NOT coaches. All of our coaches are done with their teaching duties at lunch. As a result, all of the kids who need those subjects taught to them in the afternoon are divived up between the 2 of us who are not coaches.

I guess it depends on where you work, the size of your district, etc. I am only speaking from my own experieinces.

I teach six class periods a day, and teach 3 different subjects. I do that, then teach our alternative ed classes one night a week. I attend every football game and lead the student spirit section. I attend our school's basketball games, wrestling matches, baseball games, vocal music concerts, drama productions, etc.I have, in the past, kept stats for the football team to free up one more coach to be on the sidelines with the players. While attending all of these extracurricular activities, I am more than a spectator. I am expected to keep an eye on the students and to make sure no trouble develops. If it does, I handle it.

Do I get extra pay for all of that? No. I do it because I, too, care about my students and love making a positive difference in the lives of my kids. You see coach, it works both ways. Many non-coaching teachers put in a lot of hours outside the regular school day.

Personally, I wish they would adopt a merit pay system for teachers and an evaluation system that would allow the districts to weed out the bad teachers. Unfortuantely, the unions will do all within their powers to block such a move.

[TMcGee86]

Schools need to remain unbiased, and the school needs to at least pretend that they care as much about the tuba player as they do the starting tail-back.

Again, there ain't no tuba player without football.

You think for one second that schools would spend any money on the Tuba were it not for football? No chance.

And do you think marching bands would have places to march if there was no football field? No chance.

The fact is people care about athletics. For whatever reason, our society prides itself on athletic achievement. No regular public school prides itself on having the best tuba players. But they do however advertise the state championships in athletics. Why? Because a majority of people care. It makes people want to live there and go there. Right or wrong, those are the facts.

[Texas_Longhorn]

the biggest difference between oklahoma and texas (in terms of coaching) is that in the state of oklahoma, the head coach of any sport at the high school level must be a teacher on staff with the district he coaches in.
Please explain the bold part. Are you saying Texas high school coaches don't have to be employed as a teacher in the high school district in which they coach?

[OUTrumpet]

Please explain the bold part. Are you saying Texas high school coaches don't have to be employed as a teacher in the high school district in which they coach?

They have to be employed by the school. A head coach can simply be the athletic director and not have to teach curriculum.

[Serge Ibaka]

Again, there ain't no tuba player without football.

You think for one second that schools would spend any money on the Tuba were it not for football? No chance.

And do you think marching bands would have places to march if there was no football field? No chance.

The fact is people care about athletics. For whatever reason, our society prides itself on athletic achievement. No regular public school prides itself on having the best tuba players. But they do however advertise the state championships in athletics. Why? Because a majority of people care. It makes people want to live there and go there. Right or wrong, those are the facts.

I agree that those are facts. But those facts don't necessarily legitimize 18,000 people stadiums and football coaches who make 4 times the salary of dedicated classroom teachers.

While other social-realities will place football players upon a pedestal (and that's fine; "it's just life," as they say), the school cannot actively take part in such cultural dogmatizing.

The football player is an important component of the school, but he is just as important as the tuba player or the kid who always wears black and skips out on pep-assemblies. It's a public school in a public space, and they all belong equally: school policy MUST reflect this notion.

[Texas_Longhorn]

They have to be employed by the school. A head coach can simply be the athletic director and not have to teach curriculum.
Okay, yeah that is definitely true. I have a nephew who is head football coach and athletic director of a suburban high school outside of Houston. He has 35 coaches under him and has his own secretary and no longer teaches academic classes.
As many have stated, coaching football in Texas is very important to the culture here. I assume it is the same in Oklahoma. High school football coaches salaries have increased a lot compared to other classroom teachers but to me the amount college coaches make is a bigger story. Their salaries have gone through the ceiling imo. Wow. BIG money.

[Leroy Lizard]

Again, there ain't no tuba player without football.

You think for one second that schools would spend any money on the Tuba were it not for football? No chance.

And do you think marching bands would have places to march if there was no football field? No chance.

Grove City High School in Ohio. Canceled football. Still has band.

It all depends on the funding source. If I write a grant that allows me to fund equipment purchases for band, you bet. Band is actually cheap once you get past the overhead, and there are many foundations willing to donate monies for musical equipment purchases.

Football? Nope. If the team isn't winning and costs are increasing, football could get the axe, especially in poorer communities. Why? Football is expensive and schools are having a harder time funding it. Right now a lot of schools charge the students to join. If state supreme courts start banning such fees (which they should), watch out.

Schools began axing jv squads a long time ago.

Whether football helps or hinders a community's ability to elevate their kids to successful careers is arguable.


The fact is people care about athletics. For whatever reason, our society prides itself on athletic achievement. No regular public school prides itself on having the best tuba players. But they do however advertise the state championships in athletics. Why? Because a majority of people care. It makes people want to live there and go there. Right or wrong, those are the facts.

Pride is great, until you have no money.

I'm not sure what kind of person wants to visit or live in a community because its football team won the state title, but I'm sure he's a pretty interesting fellow.

[soonerborn30]

How many professional tuba players have come back to their alma mater and donated a huge check?

[oklaclarinet]

Again, there ain't no tuba player without football.

You think for one second that schools would spend any money on the Tuba were it not for football? No chance.

And do you think marching bands would have places to march if there was no football field? No chance.

The fact is people care about athletics. For whatever reason, our society prides itself on athletic achievement. No regular public school prides itself on having the best tuba players. But they do however advertise the state championships in athletics. Why? Because a majority of people care. It makes people want to live there and go there. Right or wrong, those are the facts.

As I said before, in a statement you agreed with, it is not true one bit that a band depends on the football team. Now, are as many people going to know they are around? Probably not. After all, Friday nights are some of the biggest PR events for bands. However, that is a fraction of what they do. Would a school have a marching band without a football team. Probably not, but nothing is stopping them. Are there schools that have band programs with no football teams. Yes.

I don't doubt that the vast public cares more about athletics, but it doesn't mean that the community won't care about other activities that succeed. Broken Arrow has developed a reputation as being a band community. Collinsville has a sign as you enter the town stating welcoming you to the home of the multiple-times state champion Crimson Cadets.

The bigger point is that none of these activities are dependent on football, anymore than we say there wouldn't be a calculus class or an English class without the football team.

[Leroy Lizard]

How many professional tuba players have come back to their alma mater and donated a huge check?

How many high schools have benefited from this practice? 0.001%?

"We need to keep football because one of our players might make it big and cut us a check." Wow.

[Serge Ibaka]

How many high schools have benefited from this practice? 0.001%?

"We need to keep football because one of our players might make it big and cut us a check." Wow.

Not to mention: I would say kids are about as (more?) likely to make a lot of money through artistic endeavors than through athletics.

[RedstickSooner]

...and we shouldn't spend money on space exploration when there's starving kids in Africa.

The comparison is meaningless. As soon as English teachers start filling seats in their classroom with fans who keep yelling, "Go, Shakespeare!" while subbing sonnets depending on down & distance, maybe we can talk.

Sure, in a kumbaya world of flowers and doves and sustainable energy we'd all sit in a circle and hold hands and school teachers would get paid more than investment bankers.

But to single out football coaches as the single thing wrong with the fairness of the world is an incredibly myopic and misguided form of naivete. We live in a capitalist society, and the fact is, any time that capitalist competition can be brought to bear upon a niche, we're often not gonna like the results.

Football coaches are market driven. Straight up. Like every other market-driven profession where there's more demand & money than talent, they're going to get paid amounts that have no bearing on their ability or worth.

If you don't like it, grab a gun, take to the streets, and demand a centralized planned economy. If you do *not* support central planning of economic matters, as I suspect a lot of you bitching in this thread do not, you have NO clue.

If you say you support capitalism, this is what you support. Period. If you'd like to fix it while staying within the system, do so. What you'll need to do is find a way for teachers to become a "competitive position", where their talent is measurable by some objective metric, and a marketplace can be established where various end users can bid on their contracts.

Boosters and fans and schools want their athletic teams to win. So, obviously, they're gonna be willing to spend more on salary to increase their chances of winning. This is such a textbook example of capitalism -- and yet we've got a whole thread whining like somebody just kicked a puppy.

Are the words, "I support the free market" just lip service for some of you?

[Serge Ibaka]

...and we shouldn't spend money on space exploration when there's starving kids in Africa.


Now we're talking!

But, really redstick, everything I said in my earlier post (page 5 within my setup) still stands imo. We aren't talking about the "free-market;" we're talking about public schools in public spaces with real children who need the institution's unbiased and full-support.

It's their school, for crying-out-loud. For some of them, it's the only thing they have. And they shouldn't be made to feel like they are less important to the school simply because they were born a girl, uncoordinated, or with zero interest in sports.

School policy should be affected such that it is fully inclusive and invests in all of its parts.

[Leroy Lizard]

Not to mention: I would say kids are about as (more?) likely to make a lot of money through artistic endeavors than through athletics.

And probably less greedy and more likely to contribute.

[Leroy Lizard]

...and we shouldn't spend money on space exploration when there's starving kids in Africa.

The comparison is meaningless. As soon as English teachers start filling seats in their classroom with fans who keep yelling, "Go, Shakespeare!" while subbing sonnets depending on down & distance, maybe we can talk.

Sure, in a kumbaya world of flowers and doves and sustainable energy we'd all sit in a circle and hold hands and school teachers would get paid more than investment bankers.

There's nothing Kumbaya about it. We either increase our kids' abilities in academics, or we fall behind economically.

Having a state title in football isn't going to do a community a damn bit of good. And it won't benefit the vast majority of players on the team. It's just something to brag about.


But to single out football coaches as the single thing wrong with the fairness of the world is an incredibly myopic and misguided form of naivete. We live in a capitalist society, and the fact is, any time that capitalist competition can be brought to bear upon a niche, we're often not gonna like the results.

There is nothing capitalist about this. These are community funds, paid through by TAXES. What is so capitalistic about that?

If we truly ran this like a capitalist system, there would be no football below the 4A level and half of the 4A and 5A teams would disappear. All we would have are extracurricular activities like art. Maybe flag football.

If I'm a superintendent wanting to run the district according to free market philosophies, the first thing I do is whack the football team. Unless it is showing a profit, it is nothing more than an extracurricular activity that should be funded by those that want to participate. And since that is outside the reach of all but a handful of families, adios!

And forget track and women's sports. Riiiiiight.

If you want to see schools run like business, check out private schools. Guess what? A lot of them don't field football teams. Gee, I wonder why?

[RedstickSooner]

Those other issues have nothing to do with capitalism -- they're matters of politics.

You're tumbling into a logical fallacy when you say that because schools (and their funding) are public, this isn't driven by capitalism.

This would work the exact same if there were some corporation that built really excellent "Teacher of the Month" parking signs, but only produced a few dozen of the signs per year. Prices on those signs would go through the roof, provided the firm decided to allow the free market to dictate price -- even though the source of funding was public, and the principals & superintendents involved should spend the money on something more academically meaningful.

I'm totally cool with you hating the fact that our public officials (and anyone working in an administrative capacity in a public school system is a public official, working on *our* dime, and spending *our* money) would squander our money this way.

I'm just saying that because more than X number of principals or superintendents (I don't honestly know who decides when and how much of those public dollars should be spent on coach salaries) are willing to escalate salaries for these coaches, those salaries are gonna go up and are going to far exceed that paid to any academic position.

I probably should've admitted, however, that there's a strong case to be made that any public official contributing to or participating in this bidding war is a scumbag who should be immediately fired.

That point's valid, and I agree.

Without the public school participation, I doubt private schools would be able to sustain much of a meaningful salary arms race.

[ouleaf]

Now we're talking!

We aren't talking about the "free-market;" we're talking about public schools in public spaces with real children who need the institution's unbiased and full-support.[/I]

When you are dealing with the monster football programs though you kind of are. Like I mentioned earlier, big time teams and football school districts are all about marketing their programs to the highest bidder in hundreds of different ways that all raise money for all the schools in the district.

While it would be all well and good if sponsorship money could be split up and your school proudly have the Coca Cola Science Department, but it just isn't going to happen. I'm sure these sponsors would like to see their names more prominently displayed in the Athletics Department, Stadiums, and concession stands.

[RedstickSooner]

I agree that those are facts. But those facts don't necessarily legitimize 18,000 people stadiums and football coaches who make 4 times the salary of dedicated classroom teachers.

While other social-realities will place football players upon a pedestal (and that's fine; "it's just life," as they say), the school cannot actively take part in such cultural dogmatizing.

The football player is an important component of the school, but he is just as important as the tuba player or the kid who always wears black and skips out on pep-assemblies. It's a public school in a public space, and they all belong equally: school policy MUST reflect this notion.

Serge, I generally agree with you here, but just for fun, I hope you won't mind if I'll go off on a devil's advocate tangent. What if we look at the football program not as a part of the school, but as a school effort that serves as a community service?

In other words, having and funding and running a high-end football program isn't really a school thing -- it's a way for the school to serve as the home to something the community pays for and enjoys. Your 18,000 seat stadium is the perfect argument for this. Obviously that stadium is too large for the school -- but if it's not really the school's team... If it is, instead, the *community's* team, then that stadium makes perfect sense. As does paying a rickdiculous salary for the coach, and totally making the tuba player cry because he's not important.

Plus he's fat.

But I digress.

What I'm getting at is, at that point, with that kind of program, it really doesn't have anything to do with the school. The school is simply the place where the football team happens to exist.

And seen from that context, I don't know that there's much wrong with it. Sure, it means that teachers and tuba players and girls soccer players realize that nobody loves them, that the community loves its football and pays for its football while ignoring them, but that's the case no matter what you use as the community comparison. "But, daddy, you'll go to Hooters every Friday and ogle the waitress while eating hot wings, yet you won't come watch me play soccer on Saturday morning?"

Life not only isn't fair, it's often cruel. This is just one more example of it.

[OUTrumpet]

How many high schools have benefited from this practice? 0.001%?

"We need to keep football because one of our players might make it big and cut us a check." Wow.

There's been multiple big ones at my high school alone.

[TMcGee86]

Grove City High School in Ohio. Canceled football. Still has band.

I'm talking in a global sense. In that were it not for other schools having football, band would be an afterthought. You would no doubt still teach music in school, but then again, you would also still have PE. Band and Football are further steps and both go hand in hand.



I'm not sure what kind of person wants to visit or live in a community because its football team won the state title, but I'm sure he's a pretty interesting fellow.

You're right, I'm sure towns put signs up declaring State Championships to scare people away.





As I said before, in a statement you agreed with, it is not true one bit that a band depends on the football team. Now, are as many people going to know they are around? Probably not. After all, Friday nights are some of the biggest PR events for bands. However, that is a fraction of what they do. Would a school have a marching band without a football team. Probably not, but nothing is stopping them. Are there schools that have band programs with no football teams. Yes.

I don't doubt that the vast public cares more about athletics, but it doesn't mean that the community won't care about other activities that succeed. Broken Arrow has developed a reputation as being a band community. Collinsville has a sign as you enter the town stating welcoming you to the home of the multiple-times state champion Crimson Cadets.

The bigger point is that none of these activities are dependent on football, anymore than we say there wouldn't be a calculus class or an English class without the football team.

Again, I'm speaking in a global sense in that were it not for football in general, tuba players in marching band would not be around.

Schools would have music programs, but I don't think you would see many tuba players, at least not as many as there are now.

[TMcGee86]

Having a state title in football isn't going to do a community a damn bit of good. And it won't benefit the vast majority of players on the team. It's just something to brag about.

Neither is having a stellar music program.

[Leroy Lizard]

Those other issues have nothing to do with capitalism -- they're matters of politics.

You're tumbling into a logical fallacy when you say that because schools (and their funding) are public, this isn't driven by capitalism.

Whether we call this capitalism is a matter of semantics. Private schools are much more free-market driven and they don't have football programs.

What you have is emotion taking over in place of economics. And because some people want to win real badly for weird reasons, they can through public taxation force everyone to contribute revenue to a system that loses money.

Is that free market? On some levels, yeah. I wouldn't call it that.


Without the public school participation, I doubt private schools would be able to sustain much of a meaningful salary arms race.

Most don't get involved at all. Which is why I say that this isn't truly market driven.

[SoonerBacker]

It seems to me that we have almost lost the focus of the original post in this thread. This is not about whether football, music, arts, calculus, English, history, etc are important. I think we would all agree that all of them are. The question is whether public schools should be paying their football coaches almost twice what they pay any other teacher on their staff. Public schools are funded with taxpayer money. The salary of the coaches AND the teachers come from the same funds. Unless things in Texas are far different than they are in Oklahoma, a coach's salary does not come from the money that the football program brings in to the athletic department. They come from the district's general funds. I have already stated that the coaches deserve compensation for the extra time they spend in their extracurricular activities. So do those who sponsor any other activities for the kids at the school. If the head coach also holds an administrative position, they deserve an administrative salary. However, they should also be required to hold an administrative certificate if that is the case.

To argue that this is all about capitalism, socialism, or any other economic factor clouds the fact that ALL public schools exist to serve the students of the community. That means ALL of the students. It has been argued that if it were not for football teams, there would be no bands. We could also argue that if it were not for the public/private school in question, there would be no football team. At least not at the level that we are talking about here.

Bottom line is that the schools are SUPPOSED to be there to serve ALL children in their respective communities. It is SUPPOSED to be about the kids!

[Leroy Lizard]

I'm talking in a global sense. In that were it not for other schools having football, band would be an afterthought. You would no doubt still teach music in school, but then again, you would also still have PE. Band and Football are further steps and both go hand in hand.

No, the school I listed actually has a band, not just music classes.

And you also said, No Chance. Clearly you were wrong.


You're right, I'm sure towns put signs up declaring State Championships to scare people away.

You're being asinine. Towns put up signs declaring their state titles all the time. That is a far cry from believing that they will attract visitors and new residents because of it.

I mean, c'mon. Who would seriously consider moving to a town because its football team won the state title?


Schools would have music programs, but I don't think you would see many tuba players, at least not as many as there are now.

First you said "No chance" and now you are saying there wouldn't be as many.

I agree that if the football team goes, the band will likely go as well. Not just because the football team isn't around, but because both are affected to a large extent by the same economic problems. But not always, because it is easier to find external funding sources for band. Not so with football.

I like football. I don't like band. But if you look at this purely from a monetary standpoint, football is a tough sell.

[SoonerBacker]

Whether we call this capitalism is a matter of semantics. Private schools are much more free-market driven and they don't have football programs.

Ever heard of Heritage Hall or Bishop McGuiness? Last time I checked, they were private schools and had mighty fine football teams.

[PrideTrombone]

How many professional tuba players have come back to their alma mater and donated a huge check?

Carrie Underwood donated around $100,000 to Checotah HS's music programs last year. Not tuba, but you get the idea.

[Leroy Lizard]

Bottom line is that the schools are SUPPOSED to be there to serve ALL children in their respective communities. It is SUPPOSED to be about the kids!

It's rarely ever about the kids. :(


Unless things in Texas are far different than they are in Oklahoma, a coach's salary does not come from the money that the football program brings in to the athletic department.

And that is the essence of the problem. There are a lot of people who think that football teams bring in huge $$$, and therefore the coaches should be paid far more than other staff members. With few exceptions, that is total horse****. Football is almost always a financial drain on a school system. Sure, it has its good things and there are reasons for supporting it. But to pretend that the coach is a CEO who rakes in hundreds of thousands of dollars for the rest of the school, and that the other staff members should be beholden to him, is ludicrous.

[picasso]

Having a state title in football isn't going to do a community a damn bit of good. And it won't benefit the vast majority of players on the team. It's just something to brag about.



There is nothing capitalist about this. These are community funds, paid through by TAXES. What is so capitalistic about that?

If we truly ran this like a capitalist system, there would be no football below the 4A level and half of the 4A and 5A teams would disappear. All we would have are extracurricular activities like art. Maybe flag football.

If I'm a superintendent wanting to run the district according to free market philosophies, the first thing I do is whack the football team. Unless it is showing a profit, it is nothing more than an extracurricular activity that should be funded by those that want to participate. And since that is outside the reach of all but a handful of families, adios!

And forget track and women's sports. Riiiiiight.

If you want to see schools run like business, check out private schools. Guess what? A lot of them don't field football teams. Gee, I wonder why?

My hometown begs to differ. It's always been football crazy with a few state titles to show for it. The school is Class A/2A size and the football team has a booster club to raise money year after year.
My old golfing buddy was the superintendent of said school district for 13 years and he said the first game of the year (against our rival) always brought in enough money to fund things for the rest of the fall semester.
Of course that was every other year but we were perennial state playoff participants, and those games brought in really good money.

But you're right, being a part of a team that wins a title or just comes together and wins nothing does not benefit these poor kids at all.

[TMcGee86]

No, the school I listed actually has a band, not just music classes.

And you also said, No Chance. Clearly you were wrong.

I realize that school has a band, what I am saying is that if there was no such thing as football, and no school in Ohio played it, there is little chance that the school would have a marching band.

Clearly you didn't read what I wrote.




You're being asinine. Towns put up signs declaring their state titles all the time. That is a far cry from believing that they will attract visitors and new residents because of it.

I mean, c'mon. Who would seriously consider moving to a town because its football team won the state title?

Then why do they do it? To frighten people away? And do you think Nate Newton put his kid in Southlake because he liked the neighborhood?

Now who's being asinine?


First you said "No chance" and now you are saying there wouldn't be as many.

I agree that if the football team goes, the band will likely go as well. Not just because the football team isn't around, but because both are affected to a large extent by the same economic problems. But not always, because it is easier to find external funding sources for band. Not so with football.

I like football. I don't like band. But if you look at this purely from a monetary standpoint, football is a tough sell.

There wouldn't be many "tuba players". I still think there is no chance there would be a marching band. Music would still be in school, therefore there's always a chance some kid would play tuba, but they would be few and far between.

And if you look from a purely monetary standpoint, band makes zero sense. It brings nothing to the school and costs a lot of money. At least football makes some return.

[Leroy Lizard]

But you're right, being a part of a team that wins a title or just comes together and wins nothing does not benefit these poor kids at all.

http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee271/caldwelljones/AlBundy33.jpg

[TMcGee86]

It seems to me that we have almost lost the focus of the original post in this thread. This is not about whether football, music, arts, calculus, English, history, etc are important. I think we would all agree that all of them are. The question is whether public schools should be paying their football coaches almost twice what they pay any other teacher on their staff.

But public schools don't pay football coaches twice what they pay any other teacher. That's just wrong.

The coaches get paid a stipend, it's no where near twice their salary.

And this thread was specifically about HP's head coach, who is also the AD.

He's not a teacher so to compare him with a teacher's salary makes no sense.

[picasso]

http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee271/caldwelljones/AlBundy33.jpg

Geez you're a sad person.

And for the record, I didn't play football my final two years of high school, but I'm not dense enough to ignore the benefits.

[Leroy Lizard]

Geez you're a sad person.

And for the record, I didn't play football my final two years of high school, but I'm not dense enough to ignore the benefits.

The benefits of participating in sports? Or winning the state title?

Sports are great. You can get a lot of benefit out of sports. No argument there.

Winning the state title feels good. But in the end, having the local high school win the state title isn't going to provide any real tangible benefit to the community or even the players. It's just bragging rights.

[SoonerBacker]

But public schools don't pay football coaches twice what they pay any other teacher. That's just wrong.

The coaches get paid a stipend, it's no where near twice their salary.

And this thread was specifically about HP's head coach, who is also the AD.

He's not a teacher so to compare him with a teacher's salary makes no sense.

The original post stated that "some of those Texas high school football coaches make more than $100,000.00 a year." That is plural. Yes, he went on to say that they were specifically talking about the HP coach when the subject came up, but it still was a reference to "some" of those coaches.

That IS close to twice what a teacher makes. IF the HP coach is also the AD, then, as I stated earlier, he should get paid an administrative salary ONLY if he holds an administrative certificate. No admin certificarte? No admin pay. Do you happen to know whether all of the other coaches refered to in the opening post are also serving as an AD? If so, do they hold administrative certificates? I know the AD at our school does not. If he does not hold that certificate, then he IS just another teacher, I don't care what his title is.

[GKeeper316]

Neither is having a stellar music program.

that's where you'd be wrong.

[Collier11]

At the high school level, most of these coaches wouldn't be paid at all.

Whoops!



Can we send the coaches the bill for the electricity to light the stadium, the equipment costs, insurance fees?

You're nuts if you think sports brings in money at most high schools.

Just do the math: 3000 spectators X 5 home games per year X $20 per ticket = $300,000. Bwahahaha!!!! That wouldn't even pay the staff, not alone operating expenses.

And that's football. You have to somehow pay the track coach, the basketball coach... Even if the football team managed to make a profit (doubtful), the other sports don't. You plan to pay them coaches at all?

To pay coaches based on the amount of revenue they bring in doesn't work. The coaches in this country would never go for such an idea, because they know that if they did they would starve.

Leroy, as usual you are missing the point.

I went to a 2A HS in Oklahoma and our football program funded nearly our entire athletic department. I realize it isnt that way in all schools but in most of these being discussed it is.

[Collier11]

That is a far cry from believing that they will attract visitors and new residents because of it.

I mean, c'mon. Who would seriously consider moving to a town because its football team won the state title?

Happens more than you would ever admit to

.

I agree that if the football team goes, the band will likely go as well. Not just because the football team isn't around, but because both are affected to a large extent by the same economic problems. But not always, because it is easier to find external funding sources for band. Not so with football.



I like football. I don't like band. But if you look at this purely from a monetary standpoint, football is a tough sell.

My towns football team won 2 state titles and played for 4 state titles in the 90s, our band won about 6 or 7 state titles during that time, guess which one funded the other?

[Leroy Lizard]

Leroy, as usual you are missing the point.

I went to a 2A HS in Oklahoma and our football program funded nearly our entire athletic department. I realize it isnt that way in all schools but in most of these being discussed it is.

I didn't address this because it's purely anecdotal and, therefore, worthless.

[Leroy Lizard]

My towns football team won 2 state titles and played for 4 state titles in the 90s, our band won about 6 or 7 state titles during that time, guess which one funded the other?

I don't know and I doubt you do either.

[Collier11]

I will follow all of this up by stating that I do think teachers are vastly underpaid but its their own fault for being a part of a union.

You have the really good teachers making the same or only slightly more than the sh*tty ones

[Leroy Lizard]

I will follow all of this up by stating that I do think teachers are vastly underpaid but its their own fault for being a part of a union.

You have the really good teachers making the same or only slightly more than the sh*tty ones

Okay, on that I will agree.

[Collier11]

I don't know and I doubt you do either.

typical response from you and yes I do know and yes, it is the football team

[Leroy Lizard]

typical response from you and yes I do know and yes, it is the football team

You examined their books? Come now, Collier.


Happens more than you would ever admit to

I can't see that ever happening. I mean, I have heard of dumb reasons for choosing a town, but that takes the cake.

[yankee]

if we didn't have high school football, we wouldn't have college football, and therefore we wouldn't have OU football, and so naturally we wouldn't have soonerfans.com to talk about all this. some see the glass half empty, i see it as half full. long live football!

[SoonerBacker]

I will follow all of this up by stating that I do think teachers are vastly underpaid but its their own fault for being a part of a union.

You have the really good teachers making the same or only slightly more than the sh*tty ones

That's strange. Unions generally raise wages for their employees. That said, I hate the unions for refusing to go for merit pay and for preventing districts from getting rid of bad teachers. I will say, however, that not all teachers belong to the union. I don't. Never have and never will.

[Collier11]

You examined their books? Come now, Collier.

You grow up in a town of 3000 people you know everyone and everyones business, plus it is public knowledge as the budget is constantly posted in the town paper

I can't see that ever happening. I mean, I have heard of dumb reasons for choosing a town, but that takes the cake.

Ever hear of Jenks or Union football in Oklahoma? I had a coach try and get me to move to Dover to play baseball, they were a smaller school but a baseball powerhouse while my HS was just an average baseball school.

[Collier11]

That's strange. Unions generally raise wages for their employees. That said, I hate the unions for refusing to go for merit pay and for preventing districts from getting rid of bad teachers. I will say, however, that not all teachers belong to the union. I don't. Never have and never will.

I was speaking more about the merit based pay

[Leroy Lizard]

You grow up in a town of 3000 people you know everyone and everyones business, plus it is public knowledge as the budget is constantly posted in the town paper.

Those summaries aren't going to tell the story. School budgets are big documents. (And I doubt they would post it more than once a year -- probably after the budget was approved by the board of education.)

And I am pretty certain that after enough years, I would hardly remember much of what was posted in the newspaper back when I was in school. Give me a break, Collier.

But if you really do have such a great memory, post some numbers.


Ever hear of Jenks or Union football in Oklahoma? I had a coach try and get me to move to Dover to play baseball, they were a smaller school but a baseball powerhouse while my HS was just an average baseball school.

So out of a town of 3,000, we're talking about a migration of, what one or two families? How is that going to help the community in any meaningful fashion?

[Collier11]

Those summaries aren't going to tell the story. School budgets are big documents. (And I doubt they would post it more than once a year -- probably after the budget was approved by the board of education.)

And I am pretty certain that after enough years, I would hardly remember much of what was posted in the newspaper back when I was in school. Give me a break, Collier.

But if you really do have such a great memory, post some numbers.

Of course I dont remember exact figures but I can state as a matter of fact that the athletic department was fully supported by Football, in turn the AD supported Band and some other extra curriculars. Im not sure of specifics in big schools but in small schools you have to help other programs.

Football not only was the only sport to make money other than guys basketball but they made a substantial amount of money. Not only did football make a boatload off of ticket sales and concessions but they also had a booster club which NO other sport had



So out of a town of 3,000, we're talking about a migration of, what one or two families? How is that going to help the community in any meaningful fashion?

You said it doesnt happen, im saying it does. If you talk about bigger schools it happens a whole lot more

[Collier11]

I can tell you that our Head football coach in the 90s made $70k + as football coach and ath director.

Our head basketball coach got a $7500 a year stipend while assistants got $2000 I believe

Other sports got even less

[Shakadoodoo]

If my kids are not making the grades then they can not play sports - I think that is Leroy's main point. If it is making the school loose money than maybe it should be rethought. Yes sports are good, beneficial, ect..... But If our kids are not making the grades and keeping us behind the world in education - than what is really the point in the end. The USA's number 1 export is Sports - that is a damn shame! We ship all our jobs over seas and pay athletes $40,000,000 - There seems to be something terribly wrong with that.

[Leroy Lizard]

if we didn't have high school football, we wouldn't have college football, and therefore we wouldn't have OU football, and so naturally we wouldn't have soonerfans.com to talk about all this. some see the glass half empty, i see it as half full. long live football!

I have to admit, that's the best argument I have seen yet.

[Eielson]

It's nonsense to say this has nothing to do with capitalism/money. Paying coaches more than teachers could easily be justified simply for money reasons. Even if the football team lost more money than it brought in, a good coach can still allow the team to lose less money than they would've otherwise. Looking at the overall money gained/lost doesn't make much sense. A football program is worth having even if you lose money for it. What should ultimately be looked is how much of a difference that coach makes. If one coach gets paid $10,000 more, but because of how good his teams were, the team makes $20,000 more, was that a good call? Of course it was. For that reason (there are others), it makes no sense to compare coaches to teachers. If offering an extra $10,000 for a calculus teacher brought more money in for the school than it cost, schools would do that. The reality is that it doesn't, and no matter how hard you try to say it's not---this is an apples to oranges comparison.

Another thing to look at is that even if the football team only broke even every year, it does many positive things for the school. Right or wrong, just looking at the football program makes you thing more highly of somewhere like Jenks than you do of a place like Sapulpa. You can have a school that is top 10 in ACT scores and national merit scholars every year, but if the football team is going 2-8 every year, it looks awful for the school. You not only get local recognition, but national recognition if your team is good enough. Broken Arrow was talked about because one of their players was athletic enough to jump over another player and made the top 10 play on Sportscenter. BTW has been mentioned several times on ESPN when players like Robert Meachem and Felix Jones make exceptional plays. Jenks and Union have gotten ridiculous amounts of publicity for their rivalry and it's nonsense to act like those schools can't afford to pay $100,000 for a coach. Just go to the Backyard Bowl and look at the crowd.

You can talk about how not every school has success like Jenks or Union. You're 100% right. Then again, not every school pays $100,000 for their coach. SOME coaches get paid $100,000+. Some NBA players get paid over 20 million. That's not the average, though. That's only the best, and generally those players/coaches are worth every penny. If a school can't afford to pay a coach a certain amount of money, they don't. It's pretty simple. Do you think Union has any trouble paying their coaches? I'll just let you know that they pay a fine to use Miami's logo. Chances are that paying a coach is no problem. Sometimes schools don't even have to hardly pay the coaches salary. There are plenty of places where they've gotten huge donations from businesses that covered the price of the coach, and the same is true for turfing the field, upgrading the stadium, etc. Fundraisers are also a piece of cake for a football player. It's so easy to go door to door selling stuff that is basically garbage. I've had quite a few people buy what I was selling them and then say that they were doing just to support the program, and it doesn't have to be said for many others. $100-$200 is not hard at all to make in one morning and when you multiply that by 50-100 kids, the money adds up.

Sure, some teachers are great and they've positively affected my life. Many coaches have done the same, though. The whole "teachers changing lives" thing is a little overplayed. They come around, but it's probably only around one a year that truly does. The funny thing for me is that that one teacher was more often than not a coach. Just looking through the school associated people that strongly influenced me, I've come up with 8 teachers, and 6 of them also coached.

I completely agree that some teachers deserve more than others, but some teachers are absolutely dreadful and deserve less. The real enemy here is the way teachers are paid. Attacking coach salaries is not the answer.

[Leroy Lizard]

It's nonsense to say this has nothing to do with capitalism/money. Paying coaches more than teachers could easily be justified simply for money reasons. Even if the football team lost more money than it brought in, a good coach can still allow the team to lose less money than they would've otherwise.

So... you voted for Obama. :D

[Shakadoodoo]

The original post stated that "some of those Texas high school football coaches make more than $100,000.00 a year." That is plural. Yes, he went on to say that they were specifically talking about the HP coach when the subject came up, but it still was a reference to "some" of those coaches.

That IS close to twice what a teacher makes. IF the HP coach is also the AD, then, as I stated earlier, he should get paid an administrative salary ONLY if he holds an administrative certificate. No admin certificarte? No admin pay. Do you happen to know whether all of the other coaches refered to in the opening post are also serving as an AD? If so, do they hold administrative certificates? I know the AD at our school does not. If he does not hold that certificate, then he IS just another teacher, I don't care what his title is.

That would be correct - I meant coaches that were not AD's as well - If every head football coach in TX that gets those high salaries are AD's as well - I stand corrected. But if they are just head coaches - like Jenks and Union coaches here in OK - and still getting those over inflated salaries - we are back to Ridiculous!

[Eielson]

So... you voted for Obama. :D

Hilarious.

[TMcGee86]

The original post stated that "some of those Texas high school football coaches make more than $100,000.00 a year." That is plural. Yes, he went on to say that they were specifically talking about the HP coach when the subject came up, but it still was a reference to "some" of those coaches.

That IS close to twice what a teacher makes. IF the HP coach is also the AD, then, as I stated earlier, he should get paid an administrative salary ONLY if he holds an administrative certificate. No admin certificarte? No admin pay. Do you happen to know whether all of the other coaches refered to in the opening post are also serving as an AD? If so, do they hold administrative certificates? I know the AD at our school does not. If he does not hold that certificate, then he IS just another teacher, I don't care what his title is.

How can I know for a fact that all serve as AD when he doesn't specify who he's talking about?

I know for a fact that the one example he gave, which he admitted is who they were talking about, serves as AD. I know for a fact that every HS head coach I am familiar with also serves as AD. Are there some that don't? Probably, but I have never heard of one that didn't.

And you guys latching on to this administrative certificate BS is a joke. You are only doing that because you realize your argument is flawed. They are obviously qualified for the job or else they wouldn't hold the position. It's like saying that a principal should hold a coaching certificate.

[picasso]

If my kids are not making the grades then they can not play sports - I think that is Leroy's main point. If it is making the school loose money than maybe it should be rethought. Yes sports are good, beneficial, ect..... But If our kids are not making the grades and keeping us behind the world in education - than what is really the point in the end. The USA's number 1 export is Sports - that is a damn shame! We ship all our jobs over seas and pay athletes $40,000,000 - There seems to be something terribly wrong with that.

Yeah, let's just have the kids that are real talents in athletics focus on one sport and move in with their coach ala China and such.

Yeah that's frickin' it.

[picasso]

The benefits of participating in sports? Or winning the state title?

Sports are great. You can get a lot of benefit out of sports. No argument there.

Winning the state title feels good. But in the end, having the local high school win the state title isn't going to provide any real tangible benefit to the community or even the players. It's just bragging rights.

Says you and your worn out opinion.

[RedstickSooner]

Whether we call this capitalism is a matter of semantics. Private schools are much more free-market driven and they don't have football programs.

What you have is emotion taking over in place of economics. And because some people want to win real badly for weird reasons, they can through public taxation force everyone to contribute revenue to a system that loses money.

Is that free market? On some levels, yeah. I wouldn't call it that.



Most don't get involved at all. Which is why I say that this isn't truly market driven.

Leroy, I agree with you, but disagree with you, on this post. First, yeah, forcing everyone to cough up tax dollars to support a money-losing football program is lame as hell. And I'm not real keen on using tax dollars on high school big-money football.

However, you're incorrect about private schools. Some of the top high school football programs in the nation are private. Now, maybe you're right in that a lower percentage of private schools run football programs as compared to public schools -- I don't know. I just know that private schools *do* run football, and some of them are amongst the very best programs in the country. Just look at where fell-off-a-truck came from, in Shreveport. That's a private school. One that recruits kids and gives scholarships and gets them to move to Shreveport so they can be in the program. Can't remember its name, though.

Anyhow.

[picasso]

http://www.evangelacademy.com/

[Collier11]

Leroy is one of those that doesnt like for kids to keep score either, we dont want anyone getting their feelers hurt

[Leroy Lizard]

Leroy is one of those that doesnt like for kids to keep score either, we dont want anyone getting their feelers hurt

:confused:

(Where did that come from?)

[MrJimBeam]

So you are comparing the coaches to the CEO of Ford and the classroom teacher to a ditch digger? Talk about apples and oranges!!! As I said, I have been a "regular" classroom teacher AND a coach. There is NOT that much difference in the 2 posititons.



Regular classroom teachers don't get fired if they have a bad year, especially if they belong to the teachers union.

[SoonerBacker]

Regular classroom teachers don't get fired if they have a bad year, especially if they belong to the teachers union.

Coaches don't get fired if they have a bad year, either. Maybe if they have several, but not one.

I should also point out that many coaches are horrible classroom teachers. They focus on the sport so much that they rarely give it their all in the classroom. So perhaps you should go a different direction on this point. Should we fire those coahes who are bad teachers?

I agree with you wholeheartedly on the union. I do not approve of their political stands and I support things like merit pay, which they oppose.

[Leroy Lizard]

Regular classroom teachers don't get fired if they have a bad year, especially if they belong to the teachers union.

This is a misconception. There is a widespread belief that teachers cannot be fired. Completely false. Veteran teachers are often hard to fire, but not the others. As a teacher, you can be laid off after your first year quite easily.

Coaches who have not been on staff for long can be fired, but that is true of teachers as well. I doubt that newly hired coaches have any more longevity than newly hired teachers.

Once they have been on the district staff long enough, they are given the same job protections as veteran teachers. A long-time coach whose teams are losing cannot be fired in most cases, but the coach is often reassigned back into the classroom. This forces many of them into resigning.

A coach is a teacher. The rules for firing coaches is the same as for firing teachers. (Although that could vary from state to state.)

BTW, it doesn't matter if you belong to the teacher's union. The rules for dismissal are provided to all teachers in the district, union members or not.

[Serge Ibaka]

Leroy is right.

A coach might be fired so far as they are relieved of their coaching duty, but they will stay in their classroom (which, their base teacher pay is the most significant part of their salary anyway--coaching stipends are usually a fairly-trivial amount of money).

But even then, I can't imagine there being that much institutional pressure on coach's to succeed unless they are football (or maybe boy's basketball) coaches in tradition-rich programs.

[TMcGee86]

This is a misconception. There is a widespread belief that teachers cannot be fired. Completely false. Veteran teachers are often hard to fire, but not the others. As a teacher, you can be laid off after your first year quite easily.

Coaches who have not been on staff for long can be fired, but that is true of teachers as well. I doubt that newly hired coaches have any more longevity than newly hired teachers.

Once they have been on the district staff long enough, they are given the same job protections as veteran teachers. A long-time coach whose teams are losing cannot be fired in most cases, but the coach is often reassigned back into the classroom. This forces many of them into resigning.

A coach is a teacher. The rules for firing coaches is the same as for firing teachers. (Although that could vary from state to state.)

BTW, it doesn't matter if you belong to the teacher's union. The rules for dismissal are provided to all teachers in the district, union members or not.

It's not a misconception. At least not here in TX and we don't even have teacher's unions.

There are horrible, and I mean HORRIBLE teachers at my wifes school. And yet they cannot be fired. Instead the worst that happens is after three years in a row with numerous complaints, they are re-assigned to another subject.

In fact, I've seen two coaches fired over that same time period.

[SoonerBacker]

It's not a misconception. At least not here in TX and we don't even have teacher's unions.

There are horrible, and I mean HORRIBLE teachers at my wifes school. And yet they cannot be fired. Instead the worst that happens is after three years in a row with numerous complaints, they are re-assigned to another subject.

In fact, I've seen two coaches fired over that same time period.

And how many of the coaches are HORRIBLE teachers? My experience (30 years in the classroom) has been that I have far more students complain about the coaches who are in the classroom being "bad teachers" than all others combined! The kids who are in their classes say that they spend all of their time doing "coaching stuff" instead of actually teaching their classes. The students are bored out of their minds and do not learn anything.

We had one coach at our school who had his students read newspapers everyday and write a paragraph about an article. He actually spent more of his time outside the classroom than he did INSIDE the room while the students were present. He was always running around talking to other coaches and on the phone in the teachers' lounge discussing scheduling. And he never actually graded any of their "assignments." They just got a checkmark in the gradebook for handing it in.

His teams did not win any state titles, and usually just broke .500, but he did not get fired for his teaching OR his coaching performance. As a matter of fact, he is NOW our AD. He is one of those currently drawing that administrative salary - and he does not coach ANYTHING now. Fulltime AD!
I guess they really showed him! :rolleyes:


So, we should remember that there are good and bad people in the education system in all areas. It should also be noted that those teachers' unions everyone keeps refering to also represent those coaches who are in the classroom. They protect them and keep those coaches who are bad teachers from being fired, as well.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

My AP calculus teacher worked WAY harder than any football coach. She was there first thing in the morning, usually when only the janitors were there. Usually the last one to leave. She also taught probably the most advanced subject offered and had her degrees to prove it (Putnam City Schools does pay more--and a lot more--based on teacher's amount and level of degrees).

So I agree. No HS football coach should be brining in $100,000. Unless the AP Calc teacher is making ~$85,000.

PS Sam Bradford dropped out of her class the first week. She's fiesty.

Was it Debbie Ward?

[Leroy Lizard]

It's not a misconception. At least not here in TX and we don't even have teacher's unions.

http://www.tsta.org/



There are horrible, and I mean HORRIBLE teachers at my wifes school. And yet they cannot be fired. Instead the worst that happens is after three years in a row with numerous complaints, they are re-assigned to another subject.

In fact, I've seen two coaches fired over that same time period.

You may be comparing tenured teachers with untenured coaches. Apples and oranges.

[TMcGee86]

http://www.tsta.org/

You may be comparing tenured teachers with untenured coaches. Apples and oranges.

LOL. You really just throw crap out there and hope it sticks don't you?

I mean, seriously, you have no idea what you are talking about right now.

This is Texas. It's a right to work state. We don't have teachers unions. Sure you can "join" a union, but they have zero power. There's no CBA, no ability to strike, and no real union protection.

There's no such thing as a tenure for HS teachers in Texas.

Ha. TSTA. :rolleyes:

[AZSOONER]

It's the same everywhere, if drama teachers sold 10k tickets every weekend to their plays, they'd make 1 mil also. Money does go back to the school, but the coach (who is bringing in that revenue) asks for more, u gotta give it. We all know Brett Farve shouldn't be making 20 mil this year, but he is going to be making everyone around him dollars. (and possibly a championship) If Stoops can make 3-4 mil. per year why is it shocking that a HS coach makes 1 mil?

[SoonerBacker]

LOL. You really just throw crap out there and hope it sticks don't you?

I mean, seriously, you have no idea what you are talking about right now.

This is Texas. It's a right to work state. We don't have teachers unions. Sure you can "join" a union, but they have zero power. There's no CBA, no ability to strike, and no real union protection.

There's no such thing as a tenure for HS teachers in Texas.

Ha. TSTA. :rolleyes:

This is Oklahoma. It's a right to work state. Under your definition, we do not have a union, either. However, the OEA is, for all practical purposes, a union. Teachers in Oklahoma cannot strike. Teachers in Oklahoma do not have tenure. (Actually, the terminology has been altered somewhat, but tenure DOES exist in both Texas & Oklahoma.)The fact remains that the OEA and the local district affiliates represent the teachers' interests and carry a LOT of political power in this state. If a teacher is faced with termination, they can call a representative of the OEA to advise them and to negotiate with the board. OEA lawyers can and often do threaten lawsuits in such cases. While there is no CBA and no ability to strike, the OEA wields far more power in the state's educational systems than most people outside the profession realize. My family members who teach in Texas tell me that the situation there is basically the same as it is here.


http://certificationmap.com/states/texas-teacher-certification/

"Number of Years to Tenure: Texas requires 3 years of teaching before a teacher is eligible for tenure."

[Eielson]

I don't care how complicated people want to make the discussion, it's a lot easier to fire a coach than a teacher. If you're a teacher, and you've managed to make it through a year or two, your job is ridiculously safe assuming you don't break laws or severely break rules. Over the last four years, every single football coach has been replaced in my hometown. Over that same time period, I can only think of one teacher who was fired, and he was arrested for sexual harassment in one of his first years teaching. I've never seen a teacher removed for lack of results in the classroom. The only thing I ever see resulting from bad teaching is a teacher being given less advanced classes. You guys can get technical about how easy it is to fire a teacher, but reality is that it almost never happens. The pressure is so much higher on a head football coach. Union's coach got fired for losing 4 games. Those were 4 extremely tough games for basically any team in the country, and Union played a lot of young players on top of that. They lost to that one team in another state that had a TV show about them on MTV, Jenks, and to the legendary Ron Lancaster's Muskogee team that was at one point rated #1 in the state (I think they lost twice...and close).

As for putting a head coach football coach in a class that kids could possibly complain about him, it took a real idiot to get him there in the first place. How is the head football coach supposed to have time to teach an important class? His assistants, and coaches of other sports have more time and quite a few of them make great teachers. Saying coaches are bad teachers is a myth. My best history teacher, math teacher, and English teacher all coached something. That's three great coach-teachers right there that counter your one bad coach-teacher.

Also, "only" breaking .500 most years doesn't make somebody a bad coach. It depends on where they're at, and continuously breaking .500 can make you a pretty darn good coach at some places.

[Eielson]

It's the same everywhere, if drama teachers sold 10k tickets every weekend to their plays, they'd make 1 mil also. Money does go back to the school, but the coach (who is bringing in that revenue) asks for more, u gotta give it. We all know Brett Farve shouldn't be making 20 mil this year, but he is going to be making everyone around him dollars. (and possibly a championship) If Stoops can make 3-4 mil. per year why is it shocking that a HS coach makes 1 mil?

Surprisingly, everybody is complaining about a few of the best high school coaches receiving over $100,000.

[Leroy Lizard]

LOL. You really just throw crap out there and hope it sticks don't you?

I mean, seriously, you have no idea what you are talking about right now.



Just calm down. It'll be okay.

[SoonerBacker]

I don't care how complicated people want to make the discussion, it's a lot easier to fire a coach than a teacher. If you're a teacher, and you've managed to make it through a year or two, your job is ridiculously safe assuming you don't break laws or severely break rules.

And I don't care how simplified people want to make it. It is not easier to fire a coach than a classroom teacher IF that coach also teaches classes. As has been pointed out by people on both sides of this discussion, at the high school level, the coaches ARE teachers. Those coaches get the same representation from their repsective unions, associations (whatever the hell you want to call them) as any other classroom teacher. If you are a coach/teacher, you get tenure, too. Both Oklahoma and Texas claim that they have done away with tenure. However, a quick look at their certification standards show that BOTH state have a 3 year wait before the said teacher gets tenure.

http://school-staff-issues.suite101.com/article.cfm/teacher_tenure
How does Tenure Protect Bad Teachers?
"Once teachers earn tenure, they only can be fired for cause. (That includes teachers who coach!) Administration must have a valid reason to fire a tenured teacher, and the tenure board or arbitrator hearing the case will expect to see evidence of poor performance. Teachers are observed and evaluated on a regular basis, so a bad teacher's personnel file ought to contain poor observation reports, letters of reprimand, and suggestions for improvement. If no such evidence is present – or if nearly all the negatives were added to the file shortly before the effort to fire the teacher began – the teacher can argue that his or her overall performance was satisfactory.
In brief, if the district cannot fire a bad teacher, it should also be working to fire the incompetent administrator who failed to document the teacher's poor performance.

"When inadequate teachers are shown the evidence that will be used against them at a tenure hearing, most voluntarily resign – often encouraged by union leaders who can see that the district's case is strong. Nevertheless, unions are required by law to defend teachers who choose to fight dismissal.

"Tenure battles can be prolonged, and expensive for both the school district and the teacher union. Most often, teachers lose the battle. Some genuinely deserve to lose. Others, however, deserve to win. I personally know of teachers who were fired simply because of the fact that an administrator did not like them. The administrator simply started writing them up for small things that really had nothing to do with their classroom performance."



I keep hearing the argument that the successful football coach generates revenue for the school district. That is completely false - at least in this state. The money generated by any athkletic program does NOT go to the district's general fund. It is completely separate and does not aid the school as far as taking care of expenses outside athletics. A successful football program is not going to help pay salaries, buy textbooks, or make improvements on the district's structure.

As to the head coach being in the classroom, I thnk you will find that the vast majority of them are. You are talkiing Union, Jenks, etc. What happens at those places is not the norm for the vast majority of football programs - at least in the State of Oklahoma. Even at places like PC North, where I did my student teaching, the head coaches were in the classroom. Admittedly, that was many years ago, but it still happens in most schools.

I never said that ALL coaches made bad teachers. I thought I made it clear. The point was that there ARE coaches who are in the classroom and make horrible teachers, just as there are non-coaches who are horrible teachers. They do not get fired for being bad teachers any more often than non-coaches who are bad teachers, I don't care what their record on the field is. Some people here are trying to act as though coaches at the high school level never set foot in a classroom to teach. Then, those same people argue that they deserve a $100k salary because they teach and the coaching salary is for extra duty.

The fact of the matter is that most schools cannot afford to hire coaches who do not also teach!

[SoonerBacker]

Let's try this one. I am hearing constantly that coaches deserve a $100k salary because of a series of recurring arguments. The argument that they make more of an impact on kids' lives than classroom teachers. The argument that coaches bring more money to the district than classroom teachers. The argument that it is easier to fire a coach than a bad teacher. So let me throw a hypothetical out here.

Let's just pretend that there is a teacher out there who makes the effort to attend all of their students' extracurricular activites in support of their kids; who spends their own money to provide coats for students that don't have one in the winter; who's students constantly score above state average on state testing; who spends tons of extra hours tutoring their students and sponsoring the kids' extracurricular activities; who attends their former students' graduations from college or even graduation from military boot camps; who spends most of their summer attending training sessions to make them better teachers; who takes the time to help their students work through difficulties in their lives.....

Are they just as worthy of the $100k salary as the coaches who make an impact on their athletes' lives and win a state championship? I'd be willing to bet that there are more teachers who fit the above description than most here are willing to admit.

Another argument is that coaches bring more $ into the school. So let's just pretend that there is a teacher out there who is constantly writing and getting grants for the district which allow the district to purchase computers for the school, purchase more books for the school library, or get money to improve the school's campus. Does that teacher deserve the $100k salary because of the money they bring in to the district on an annual basis? Again, there are many teachers out there who do exactly what I have described above.


The "it's easier to fire a coach than a classroom teacher" argument is not really true IF that coach is a classrooom teacher, too. And my earlier point is still valid. There are just as many "bad teachers" who also coach as there are "bad teachers" who don't. Both, unfortunately, are protected by those unions/associations that fight to keep the bad from being fired.

[TMcGee86]

Just calm down. It'll be okay.

heh

[TMcGee86]

This is Oklahoma. It's a right to work state. Under your definition, we do not have a union, either. However, the OEA is, for all practical purposes, a union. Teachers in Oklahoma cannot strike. Teachers in Oklahoma do not have tenure. (Actually, the terminology has been altered somewhat, but tenure DOES exist in both Texas & Oklahoma.)The fact remains that the OEA and the local district affiliates represent the teachers' interests and carry a LOT of political power in this state. If a teacher is faced with termination, they can call a representative of the OEA to advise them and to negotiate with the board. OEA lawyers can and often do threaten lawsuits in such cases. While there is no CBA and no ability to strike, the OEA wields far more power in the state's educational systems than most people outside the profession realize. My family members who teach in Texas tell me that the situation there is basically the same as it is here.


http://certificationmap.com/states/texas-teacher-certification/

"Number of Years to Tenure: Texas requires 3 years of teaching before a teacher is eligible for tenure."

I stand by my statement, no such thing as tenure for a HS teacher. I've never heard of any 3 year requirement and never heard of any tenured teachers. I have no idea where that website is getting its information.


And what's a union without a CBA or the ability to strike? Nothing. Basically just pre-paid legal.

But this is getting way off track because my point was it's hard to fire teachers in Texas. Everything you guys are saying only furthers that point.

[SoonerBacker]

I stand by my statement, no such thing as tenure for a HS teacher. I've never heard of any 3 year requirement and never heard of any tenured teachers. I have no idea where that website is getting its information.


You obviously did not check the link.
http://certificationmap.com/states/t...certification/
"Number of Years to Tenure: Texas requires 3 years of teaching before a teacher is eligible for tenure."

And what's a union without a CBA or the ability to strike? Nothing. Basically just pre-paid legal.

A lobbying group at the state legislature which has a LOT of influence over state educational policies. An organization that will fight in the courtroom to protect teachers' jobs and salaries.

But this is getting way off track because my point was it's hard to fire teachers in Texas. Everything you guys are saying only furthers that point.

If there is no such thing as tenure in Texas, and if the TSTA is not an effective union, why is it so much more difficult to fire teachers than coaches?

I have never argued that it is easy to fire a bad teacher. I agree wholeheartedly. This is why I refuse to join the union or "professional organization." But most coaches are teachers, too. I am just saying it is just as hard to fire them as it is any other teacher. (Unless they are only administrators and do not step foot in the classroom!) The fact remains, however, that MOST coaches also teach classes. That includes MOST head coaches.



You have your opinions. I have mine. Neither one of us is going to change the other's, so I'm dropping this one. Back to the more enjoyable threads available at SF.

[oklaclarinet]

Everything SoonerBacker is saying about firing teachers is correct. Where I think TMcGee is getting the idea that it is easier to fire coaches is that it is easy to remove a coach, or anyone who does an extra duty, from that extra duty. So effectively they aren't fired, but they are removed from a position.

Now if the coach has passed the three year time period, that person retains the classroom position, unless the school goes through the above described process to completely fire them. So again that coach is not fired. Now, the coach who is no longer coaching may then chose to leave the job to find a job at another school where he can coach, but at that point it is a voluntary decision.

BTW, about the Union head coach that was let go after one year, it was - one year. It is especially easy to get rid of any teacher after one year, as teachers are all on a probationary contract for the first year.