Tx high school football coaching salary....

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

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.

 

This isn't an insult?

 

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.

 

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.

 

????

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 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.

 

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

He might be able to break even.

This is an expensive sport.

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 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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

True, but that is somewhat beside the point.

 

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.