Coaching Staffs Trimmed

[smitty]

So, let's deal with reality.  In the free enterprise, private industry -- you know, what we call capitalism, people get laid off all the time.  INCLUDING older people with 20-25 years of good experience.  So, why should a school district -- that should be highly efficient with taxpayer's dollars -- be any different??!!  This is called the real world!

[quote name="True Blue" post="998400" timestamp="1302972533"]
OK let me get this stright, You wont to force out the teaches that have been there for 20 to 25 yrs?? This means that a person that has spent their whole life doing one job will now have to go back out in the open job market, with only teaching experance, and find a new job??? Now remember these people are only 45 to 50 years old???  Thats what you wont??? You must be very young or just a fool.
[/quote]

[mat]

[quote name="smitty" post="998661" timestamp="1303036794"]
So, let's deal with reality.  In the free enterprise, private industry -- you know, what we call capitalism, people get laid off all the time.  INCLUDING older people with 20-25 years of good experience.  So, why should a school district -- that should be highly efficient with taxpayer's dollars -- be any different??!!   This is called the real world!

[quote author=True Blue link=topic=82980.msg998400#msg998400 date=1302972533]
OK let me get this stright, You wont to force out the teaches that have been there for 20 to 25 yrs?? This means that a person that has spent their whole life doing one job will now have to go back out in the open job market, with only teaching experance, and find a new job??? Now remember these people are only 45 to 50 years old???  Thats what you wont??? You must be very young or just a fool.
[/quote]
[/quote]
You can’t legally target specifically older, longer tenured, teachers for layoffs.

[Tiger90]

Bonds are not to be used for salaries.  Bonds are monies voted on by the tax payers that are above and beyond the regular property tax.  Regular property tax rates are at maximum allowed by law in nearly every district.  So no monies used to pay a bond can not be used for salaries.

In regards to those who say get rid of those with 25+ years nearly every head coach around here has close to that if not more. So are those folks wanting the hc/ad fired as well? 

Lots of misinformation out there.  The best one is the 1:1 ratio and how in the 70s it was a 5:1 teacher to nonclassroom personnel.  The state did not even keep record of those extra folks until the 80s. The ratios have been consistent for many years.

[True Blue]

[quote name="mat" post="998672" timestamp="1303048143"]
[quote author=smitty link=topic=82980.msg998661#msg998661 date=1303036794]
So, let's deal with reality.  In the free enterprise, private industry -- you know, what we call capitalism, people get laid off all the time.  INCLUDING older people with 20-25 years of good experience.  So, why should a school district -- that should be highly efficient with taxpayer's dollars -- be any different??!!   This is called the real world!

[quote author=True Blue link=topic=82980.msg998400#msg998400 date=1302972533]
OK let me get this stright, You wont to force out the teaches that have been there for 20 to 25 yrs?? This means that a person that has spent their whole life doing one job will now have to go back out in the open job market, with only teaching experance, and find a new job??? Now remember these people are only 45 to 50 years old???  Thats what you wont??? You must be very young or just a fool.
[/quote]
[/quote]
You can’t legally target specifically older, longer tenured, teachers for layoffs.
[/quote] Well you say that now, but if the Rep.party has their way and bust the Unions.They would be able to replace anyone that they wonted.

[CodyLB34]

[quote name="True Blue" post="998758" timestamp="1303069684"]
[quote author=mat link=topic=82980.msg998672#msg998672 date=1303048143]
[quote author=smitty link=topic=82980.msg998661#msg998661 date=1303036794]
So, let's deal with reality.  In the free enterprise, private industry -- you know, what we call capitalism, people get laid off all the time.  INCLUDING older people with 20-25 years of good experience.  So, why should a school district -- that should be highly efficient with taxpayer's dollars -- be any different??!!   This is called the real world!

[quote author=True Blue link=topic=82980.msg998400#msg998400 date=1302972533]
OK let me get this stright, You wont to force out the teaches that have been there for 20 to 25 yrs?? This means that a person that has spent their whole life doing one job will now have to go back out in the open job market, with only teaching experance, and find a new job??? Now remember these people are only 45 to 50 years old???  Thats what you wont??? You must be very young or just a fool.
[/quote]
[/quote]
You can’t legally target specifically older, longer tenured, teachers for layoffs.
[/quote] Well you say that now, but if the Rep.party has their way and bust the Unions.They would be able to replace anyone that they wonted.
[/quote]

WOW............TRUE BLUE..............GET A CLUE

[True Blue]

No I have the clue Its the rest of you Tea Party fools that need to get a Clue. You dont wont to pay any taxes But yet your the first to call when the house is on fire. Or the big bad wolf is at the door, and you need the law..

[The Icon]

Blue, I'm sure everyone on this thread would love to keep all teachers. What Smitty and I were offering was a shave the budget.

I, personally, do not want to get rid of any teachers. However, we are currently presented with a budget predicament in most district around the state. And those same districts are offering 'Early Retirement Incentives' in order to get those teachers to move on. No one is making anyone do anything. In fact, most probationary teachers (ones with 1-3 yrs exp) are the ones being cut.

Now, instead of having a lower student to teacher ratio by getting more experienced teachers to move on, and hiring younger teacher w/ experience or training. You are now left with almost 2 teachers per grade per department. With class sizes of 30+ your child is getting no individual attention.

Pick your poison

[True Blue]

I Deff. understand what your saying. But Lets cut to the real chase,  Slick Rick has put us in this possision, by giving the oil comp. tax breaks back in 2006. And he needs to tap into the rainy day fund, and then roll back the tax cuts he gave his rich oil comp. friends..  And until this take place no schools jobs  will be safe. I have a daughter that is now in her last year in kinesioloigy and is plaining on being a high school coach. And right now that does not look like a great job with a bright futher.

[dawgnut]

One of the biggest problems in education today is not tax cuts for oil companies, or slick Rick as you call him, it's unfunded mandates from the Federal and State Legislatures. These geniuses want to tell the local school districts what they have to do, but they don't want to pay for it so they pass legislation that mandate what the schools have to do and force them to use their own money to get it done. We had a little revolution in this part of the world in the 1700's over taxation without representation, if you want to see how fast the school budgets could get back in line force some legislation that exiled anyone that proposed or voted on any unfunded mandates for public education. It wouldn't take long before the local tax payers took back control of their schools and their money.

[smitty]

You are right, bonds can't be used for salaries.  The point, again, I was making is that bonds are paid -- one way or the other -- with tax dollars.  Don't pass the bond issues.  But use the money that THAT WAS GOING TO BE USED TO PAY THE BONDS, if needed, to keep some teachers.  Step up and increase  the tax rate if the board really thinks it's necessary.  But before that, you make sure you are highly efficient as possible. 


[quote name="Tiger90" post="998673" timestamp="1303048426"]
Bonds are not to be used for salaries.  Bonds are monies voted on by the tax payers that are above and beyond the regular property tax.  Regular property tax rates are at maximum allowed by law in nearly every district.  So no monies used to pay a bond can not be used for salaries.

In regards to those who say get rid of those with 25+ years nearly every head coach around here has close to that if not more. So are those folks wanting the hc/ad fired as well? 

Lots of misinformation out there.  The best one is the 1:1 ratio and how in the 70s it was a 5:1 teacher to nonclassroom personnel.  The state did not even keep record of those extra folks until the 80s. The ratios have been consistent for many years.
[/quote]

[smitty]

Teachers have unions in Texas?  Plus, tenure should NEVER be allowed in any school in the US.  Let the apologist tell us what to do with a BAD tenured teacher!!


[quote name="True Blue" post="998758" timestamp="1303069684"]
[quote author=mat link=topic=82980.msg998672#msg998672 date=1303048143]
[quote author=smitty link=topic=82980.msg998661#msg998661 date=1303036794]
So, let's deal with reality.  In the free enterprise, private industry -- you know, what we call capitalism, people get laid off all the time.  INCLUDING older people with 20-25 years of good experience.  So, why should a school district -- that should be highly efficient with taxpayer's dollars -- be any different??!!   This is called the real world!

[quote author=True Blue link=topic=82980.msg998400#msg998400 date=1302972533]
OK let me get this stright, You wont to force out the teaches that have been there for 20 to 25 yrs?? This means that a person that has spent their whole life doing one job will now have to go back out in the open job market, with only teaching experance, and find a new job??? Now remember these people are only 45 to 50 years old???  Thats what you wont??? You must be very young or just a fool.
[/quote]
[/quote]
You can’t legally target specifically older, longer tenured, teachers for layoffs.
[/quote] Well you say that now, but if the Rep.party has their way and bust the Unions.They would be able to replace anyone that they wonted.
[/quote]

[smitty]

Slow down, Mr. socialist!  LOL!!  TEA stands for Taxed ENOUGH Already.  Doesn't say anything about no taxes. 
Read the 10th amendment to the Constitution and get back with us.  Plus, while you are at it, was there any taxes in the Constitution before 1913??!!    ;)  Wait, 1913, this is when the seeds of our problems started.  But that's a conversation for another time. 


[quote name="True Blue" post="998867" timestamp="1303087585"]
No I have the clue Its the rest of you Tea Party fools that need to get a Clue. You dont wont to pay any taxes But yet your the first to call when the house is on fire. Or the big bad wolf is at the door, and you need the law..
[/quote]

[Guest speechless]

Just some facts for those that think cutting athletics/extracurriculars is the way to solve the problem:

-95% of all coaches are full time school employees

-Coaches receive a stipend for coaching, their salary is for their full time status with the ISD.  For instance, a high school coach may receive $3500 for coaching football, $2500 for coaching basketball, and $2000 for coaching track plus 10 days of their daily rate for working during the summer......and I can assure you for assistant coaches this is a best case scenario.  Please take $3500 and divide it by the hours worked on football alone during the season.....do the same for basketball and track.  These coaches make far less than minimum wage for these extracurricular activities.  Furthermore, cutting a coach that makes the above stipends is saving $10k in coaching stipends.....so you would have to cut 10 coaches just to get rid of 10% of the millions of dollars that some of these schools are facing.....and in doing so you are cutting teachers also.

-Do any of you have ANY idea what % of a school's operating budget is taken up by athletics?  It usually falls in the 10%-15% range.  So if you cut an athletic budget by 10% then you are, in essence, cutting 10% of 10%.....it doesn't take a genius to see that does not make a dent in these large deficits.

[bojonomore]

To the earlier arguement about how many coaches a school should have: it totally depends on the size of the football program.  Deweyville doesn't need as many coaches as Bridge City, who doesn't need as many coaches as PNG or West Brook.  A school with 200+ kids in the program is gonna need more coaches. 

[ispeakjive]

Smitty, I never thought I would say it, but you are almost spot on with what you have posted on this thread. 

I don't think that anyone on this board wants to see athletic budgets cut, but with the problems coming, you are going to have to cut and sacrifice somewhere.  Athletics are extra-curricular, just like choir, band, etc.  Those areas should have to share the burden of cuts as well.  And, whoever said that bloated administrative budgets should be first is absolutely correct.  All administrators not directly involved with students should be looking at minimum five to ten percent cuts - Butch's should be more like forty to fifty percent. 

I used to coach and no one respects what those guys and ladies do more than me, but you have to cut the "wants" (athletics, band, other extra-curricular activities) first before you even think about cutting the "needs" (core subject teachers).  If a coach teaches a core subject, he or she should get priority.  But, I think that most athletic staffs are going to have to learn to do more with less for the time being.  It's unfortunate, but probably necessary right now.  Most of the districts in this area have very competent and able athletic directors and asking a high school football staff to make it with nine coaches instead of ten or a middle school staff to make it with three instead of four should not greatly impact what the kids are learning. 

[Guest speechless]

Did you know that most coaches are History teachers which is a core subject?

[smitty]

Ispeak, you get an "applaud" for having common sense!   


[quote name="ispeakjive" post="999104" timestamp="1303149561"]
Smitty, I never thought I would say it, but you are almost spot on with what you have posted on this thread. 

I don't think that anyone on this board wants to see athletic budgets cut, but with the problems coming, you are going to have to cut and sacrifice somewhere.  Athletics are extra-curricular, just like choir, band, etc.  Those areas should have to share the burden of cuts as well.  And, whoever said that bloated administrative budgets should be first is absolutely correct.  All administrators not directly involved with students should be looking at minimum five to ten percent cuts - Butch's should be more like forty to fifty percent. 

I used to coach and no one respects what those guys and ladies do more than me, but you have to cut the "wants" (athletics, band, other extra-curricular activities) first before you even think about cutting the "needs" (core subject teachers).  If a coach teaches a core subject, he or she should get priority.  But, I think that most athletic staffs are going to have to learn to do more with less for the time being.  It's unfortunate, but probably necessary right now.  Most of the districts in this area have very competent and able athletic directors and asking a high school football staff to make it with nine coaches instead of ten or a middle school staff to make it with three instead of four should not greatly impact what the kids are learning. 
[/quote]

[smitty]

Good!  So have the board tell the district you will only have 6-7 coaches on the HS level and 2 each for 8th and 9th grade.  They can be whatever teachers they are...


[quote name="speechless" post="999124" timestamp="1303154123"]
Did you know that most coaches are History teachers which is a core subject?
[/quote]

[mat]

[quote name="smitty" post="999153" timestamp="1303158505"]
Good!  So have the board tell the district you will only have 6-7 coaches on the HS level and 2 each for 8th and 9th grade.  They can be whatever teachers they are...


[quote author=speechless link=topic=82980.msg999124#msg999124 date=1303154123]
Did you know that most coaches are History teachers which is a core subject?
[/quote]
[/quote]

Maybe a good idea in theory but when your team has six coaches and you're going against teams that has had ten coaches all season you will be at a disadvantage. And then when your team falls short people will want to replace the AD, OC, DC etc. The same folks at say there's to much emphasis on athletics.

[JohnnyT60]

But you saved $7000.00!!!  :o :o

[Bon_Mot]

[quote name="A Bear's Bear" post="999007" timestamp="1303136925"]
To the earlier arguement about how many coaches a school should have: it totally depends on the size of the football program.  Deweyville doesn't need as many coaches as Bridge City, who doesn't need as many coaches as PNG or West Brook.  A school with 200+ kids in the program is gonna need more coaches. 
[/quote]
I think we need to differentiate the idea of "need" and "would like".  The band at many campuses has a [i]large[/i] number of kids in their program, yet get by (and prosper) with much less than 10 to 15 'coaches'.  Would they "like" a specific coach for each instrument? Sure. Do they "need" it to be successful? Results prove otherwise.
As a soccer coach, I would love to have HALF the resources that football does, i.e. coaches, equipment, travel budget. But to think that football versus any other sport are treated equal is ludicrous. What's the difference? Popularity? Is this how we decide any other part of the budget in education? Should the math department get less money because fewer kids are interested in arithmetic? Don't say money, because football spends just as much as they bring in at most schools.
I'm not saying anyone should be fired, but when looking to save money, one should look at where the surpluses are. And please don't think that I'm taking sides with smitty.  That guy is just insane. But please ask yourself about the difference between "need" and "would like" concerning your athletic department.

[dawgnut]

Most administrators "need" to keep their job and since the fans "want" a successful football program they get more coach's. Plain and simple, the law of supply and demand.

[AggiesAreWe]

[quote name="dawgnut" post="999322" timestamp="1303209357"]
Most administrators "need" to keep their job and since the fans "want" a successful football program they get more coach's. Plain and simple, the law of supply and demand.
[/quote]


This pretty much sums it up.

Good post.

[smitty]

This is why you have elected school board members actually making the decisions.  If they don't/won't to do their responsibility, then you elect someone that will.  Now it's plain and simple!!


[quote name="dawgnut" post="999322" timestamp="1303209357"]
Most administrators "need" to keep their job and since the fans "want" a successful football program they get more coach's. Plain and simple, the law of supply and demand.
[/quote]

[smitty]

You are missing the big picture.  A school COULD drop all extra curricular activities.  Remember, football is just a game.  Kids are there for an education.  Schools are at the mercy of the tax payers.  That's why we MUST elect school board members.  So, fair and advantages mean absolutely nothing!!  
PS - If it still bothers you, let's have the State require that schools can only have 7 HS football coaches.  Now, every pne has the same!!    ;)


[quote name="mat" post="999244" timestamp="1303172212"]
[quote author=smitty link=topic=82980.msg999153#msg999153 date=1303158505]
Good!  So have the board tell the district you will only have 6-7 coaches on the HS level and 2 each for 8th and 9th grade.  They can be whatever teachers they are...


[quote author=speechless link=topic=82980.msg999124#msg999124 date=1303154123]
Did you know that most coaches are History teachers which is a core subject?
[/quote]
[/quote]

Maybe a good idea in theory but when your team has six coaches and you're going against teams that has had ten coaches all season you will be at a disadvantage. And then when your team falls short people will want to replace the AD, OC, DC etc. The same folks at say there's to much emphasis on athletics.
[/quote]