Coaching Staffs Trimmed

[mat]

[quote name="smitty" post="999344" timestamp="1303217177"]
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 author=mat link=topic=82980.msg999244#msg999244 date=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]
[/quote]

Once again, there's theory and reality. Much of school funding is based on ADA (average daily attendance) With so many school offering open enrollment these days to attract ADA, drop your extra curricular activities and student will move to districts that offers extra curricular activities. If a single district choses to eliminate extra curricular activities they will lose students and money.

[Guest speechless]

Smitty,

a school board's job is not to hire/fire people

they are there to set the tax rate and go off the recommendations of the superintendent

[JohnnyT60]

Reducing coaching positions has a minimal impact on the budget. Assuming you eliminate 4 positions, that would only reduce your budget by $14,000. At what cost, many of these children look to their coaches for guidance and leadership because they don't get it at home. I see a lot of panick going on, this is a temp economic downfall. Sure the belt needs to be tightend where it can, but no decisions, I repeat, no decisions should be made that have long term effects on campus. The rainy day fund will pick up some this year and administrators will have time to make adjustments going forward. Coaching seems to be the easy target, but really with little impact on the budget.

[Hupernikomen]

[quote name="JohnnyT60" post="999436" timestamp="1303225662"]
Reducing coaching positions has a minimal impact on the budget. Assuming you eliminate 4 positions, that would only reduce your budget by $14,000. At what cost, many of these children look to their coaches for guidance and leadership because they don't get it at home. I see a lot of panick going on, this is a temp economic downfall. Sure the belt needs to be tightend where it can, but no decisions, I repeat, no decisions should be made that have long term effects on campus. The rainy day fund will pick up some this year and administrators will have time to make adjustments going forward. Coaching seems to be the easy target, but really with little impact on the budget.
[/quote]

4 positions equals more like 200k.  Districts who cut these positions will not be keeping the employee for other purposes.  I am sure that there are many, many coaches who would gladly give up athletics and just stay on in their other roles for the district.  This will not be the case.


Somethings to ponder..

In 07-08 Texas was 41st in per pupil spending among the States.  In that same year we were 48th in taxation (sales, income, excess etc.)
The year before in 06 Texas came up with a new funding system that reduced everyone's property tax across the state by 1/3rd.  (Federal court cases made them come up with new funding system)
--this was to be replaced by a business tax.  (it brings in BILLIONS LESS than what was promised)
--they forced your county appraisal district to appraise "fairly" at that same time.  How has that worked out for you?  I now have a lower tax rate and a home that has grown in value @ 50% in the last 5 years.  Do the math and you can see that "tax break" has evaporated.

On to the business tax.  [url=http://www.window.state.tx.us/news/60515letter.html]Strayhorn letter to Perry tells you all need to know.[/url]  (Notice the 2006 date on this one folks, this was our previous Comptroller telling Perry at the fallacy of their plan.)


The bottom line is Texas has always expected schools to do more with less and now they are demanding even more with even less and blaming the need for less on anyone they can point a finger at:  over-abundance of administrators, over-abundance or specialists, over-abundance of coaches, and over-abundance of every other position in the district.

Why not fund education at a level that the constitution demands? 

Of course we have some fluff that can be trimmed.  Every organization does.  Trust me it is being trimmed.

Shouldn't we be demanding that the State provide those billions they promised whenever they rewrote the public funding laws? 

[belle-mere]

We're beating a dead horse to death. Coaches will be trimmed at some schools more than others. This year because schedules are set, there will be sports as usual but no new uniforms or coaches' shoes/clothes. Kids will have to pay for some equipment.

Tournaments this year?  Will they be curtailed?  What do y'all think?

The following year--if the budget costs are slashed badly--expect fewer preseason games, especially far away ones; few or no tournaments; etc. But I am betting we'll have district games.

[smitty]

They have more power than you think!!


[quote name="speechless" post="999423" timestamp="1303224522"]
Smitty,

a school board's job is not to hire/fire people

they are there to set the tax rate and go off the recommendations of the superintendent
[/quote]

[Guest speechless]

I understand what you are saying but, that is not part of their legal job description

[The Icon]

Some schools are having to trim down to one tournament in most sports

[shermdog]

THought I would share this.  I received this today.  To me it makes a lot of sense.

Dear Editor,

The age of accountability should be renamed the age of blame, when teachers wear the scarlet letter for the failings of a nation. We send teachers into pockets of poverty that our leaders can’t or won’t eradicate, and when those teachers fail to work miracles among devastated children, we stamp ‘unacceptable’ on their foreheads.

I ask you, where is the label for the lawmaker whose policies fail to clean up the poorest neighborhoods? Why do we not demand that our leaders make “Adequate Yearly Progress”? We have data about poverty, health care, crime, and drug abuse in every legislative district. We know that those factors directly impact our ability to teach kids. Why have we not established annual targets for our legislators to meet? Why do they not join us beneath these vinyl banners that read “exemplary” in the suburbs and “unacceptable” in the slums?

Let us label lawmakers like we label teachers, and we can eliminate 100 percent of poverty, crime, drug abuse, and preventable illness by 2014! It is easy for elected officials to tell teachers to “Race to the top” when no one has a stopwatch on them! Lace up your sneakers, Senators! Come race with us!

Teachers are surrounded by armchair quarterbacks who won’t lift a finger to help, only to point. Congressmen, come down out of those bleachers and strive with us against the pernicious ravages of poverty. We need more from you than blame. America’s education problem is actually a poverty problem.

If labels fix schools, let us use labels to fix our congresses! Let lawmakers show the courage of a teacher! Hold hands with us and let us march together into the teeth of this blame machine you have built. Let us hold this congressman up against that congressman and compare them just as we compare our schools. Congressmen, do not fear this accountability you have given us. Like us, you will learn to love it.

Or maybe lawmakers do such a wonderful job that we don’t need to hold them accountable?

Did you know that over the next five years, Texas lawmakers will send half a billion dollars to London, to line the pockets of Pearson’s stakeholders. That’s 15,000 teacher salaries, sacrificed at the altar of standardized testing. $500,000,000 for a test! I’m sure it’s a nice test, but it’s just a test. I’ve never seen a test change a kid’s life or dry a kid’s tear. Tests don’t show up at family funerals or junior high basketball games. They don’t chip in to buy a poor girl a prom dress. Only teachers do those things.

If times are desperate enough to slash local schools’ operating funds, then surely they are desperate enough to slash Pearson’s profits. Lawmakers, get your priorities straight. Put a moratorium on testing until we can afford it. Teachers are our treasure – let’s not lose the house just so we can keep our subscription to Pearson’s Test-of-the-Month Club. We have heard Texas senators often talk about the teacher-to-non-teacher ratio in our schools. Lawmakers, they are ALL non-teachers at Pearson. Don’t spend half a billion dollars that we don’t have on some test that is made in England.

Parents are so fed up with standardized testing that hundreds are now refusing to let their children test. They do not want their children run through this terrible punch press. They do not want standardized children. They want exceptional children!

Let me tell you Texas’s other dirty secret – some schools get three times the funding of other schools. Some schools get $12,000 per student, while others get $4,000. Did you know that every single child in Austin is worth $1,000 more than every single child in Fort Worth? Do you agree with that valuation? Congress does. They spend billions to fund this imbalance.

Now the architects of this inequity point at the salaries and staff sizes at the schools they have enriched to justify cuts at schools that have never been given enough. State Sen. Florence Shapiro, of Plano, says, essentially, yes, but we’re cutting the poor schools by less. Senator, you don’t take bread away from people in a soup line! Not even one crumb. And you should not take funds away from schools that you have already underfunded for years. It may be politically right to bring home the bacon, but ain’t right right.

Legislators, take the energy you spend shifting blame and apply it toward fixing the funding mechanisms. We elected you to solve the state’s problems, not merely to blame them on local government. After all, you have mandated local decision-making for years. Your FIRST rating system tells school boards that their district’s administrative cost ratio can be no higher than 0.2 percent. And over 95 percent of school districts in Texas are in compliance with the standard you have set. At my school, our administrative cost ratio is 0.06 percent – so could you please stop blaming me?

If 95 percent of schools are compliant with the administrative cost ratio indicator in the state’s financial rating system for schools, then why are state officials saying we have too much administration? We have the amount of administration they told us to have! Either they gave us bad guidance and we all followed it, or they gave us good guidance and just need someone other than themselves to blame for these cuts.

Is this the best we can do in Texas? I wish they would worry about students half as much as they worry about getting re-elected.

These same senators have a catchy new slogan: “Protect the Classroom.” I ask you, senators: who are we protecting the classroom from? You, that’s who. You are swinging the ax; don’t blame us for bleeding wrong.

They know that their cuts are so drastic that school boards will have no choice but to let teachers go, and I can prove it: while they give press conferences telling superintendents not to fire teachers, at the same time they pass laws making it easier for ... you guessed it ...administrators to fire teachers. Which is it, senators?

If we don’t truly need to cut teachers, then don’t pass the laws that reduce their employment protections. And if we truly do need to cut teachers, then go ahead and pass those laws but quit saying teacher cuts are the superintendents’ fault. Here’s the deal: I can accept cuts, but I cannot do anything but forcefully reject deceit.

Politicians, save your buck-passing for another day. We need leadership. Get to work, congressmen. Do your jobs, and find the revenue to fund my child’s education.

Sincerely,

John Kuhn, father of three, Perrin

Benavides Roy
[email protected]

[JohnnyT60]

[quote name="Hupernikomen" post="999853" timestamp="1303262052"]
[quote author=JohnnyT60 link=topic=82980.msg999436#msg999436 date=1303225662]
Reducing coaching positions has a minimal impact on the budget. Assuming you eliminate 4 positions, that would only reduce your budget by $14,000. At what cost, many of these children look to their coaches for guidance and leadership because they don't get it at home. I see a lot of panick going on, this is a temp economic downfall. Sure the belt needs to be tightend where it can, but no decisions, I repeat, no decisions should be made that have long term effects on campus. The rainy day fund will pick up some this year and administrators will have time to make adjustments going forward. Coaching seems to be the easy target, but really with little impact on the budget.
[/quote]

[b]4 positions equals more like 200k[/b].  Districts who cut these positions will not be keeping the employee for other purposes.  I am sure that there are many, many coaches who would gladly give up athletics and just stay on in their other roles for the district.  This will not be the case.


Somethings to ponder..

In 07-08 Texas was 41st in per pupil spending among the States.  In that same year we were 48th in taxation (sales, income, excess etc.)
The year before in 06 Texas came up with a new funding system that reduced everyone's property tax across the state by 1/3rd.  (Federal court cases made them come up with new funding system)
--this was to be replaced by a business tax.  (it brings in BILLIONS LESS than what was promised)
--they forced your county appraisal district to appraise "fairly" at that same time.  How has that worked out for you?  I now have a lower tax rate and a home that has grown in value @ 50% in the last 5 years.  Do the math and you can see that "tax break" has evaporated.

On to the business tax.  [url=http://www.window.state.tx.us/news/60515letter.html]Strayhorn letter to Perry tells you all need to know.[/url]  (Notice the 2006 date on this one folks, this was our previous Comptroller telling Perry at the fallacy of their plan.)


The bottom line is Texas has always expected schools to do more with less and now they are demanding even more with even less and blaming the need for less on anyone they can point a finger at:  over-abundance of administrators, over-abundance or specialists, over-abundance of coaches, and over-abundance of every other position in the district.

Why not fund education at a level that the constitution demands? 

Of course we have some fluff that can be trimmed.  Every organization does.  Trust me it is being trimmed.

Shouldn't we be demanding that the State provide those billions they promised whenever they rewrote the public funding laws? 





[/quote]

Not if they continue to teach. You are only removing the coaching stipend. All I have read is how cutting coaches will trim the budget. What I have tried to stress is that most, especially the young ones teach also. I don't believe anyone is supporting of cutting teachers. Coaches seem to be the easy targets. yet will result in very little of a budget reduction.

[Hupernikomen]

[quote name="JohnnyT60" post="1000482" timestamp="1303335658"]
[quote author=Hupernikomen link=topic=82980.msg999853#msg999853 date=1303262052]
[quote author=JohnnyT60 link=topic=82980.msg999436#msg999436 date=1303225662]
Reducing coaching positions has a minimal impact on the budget. Assuming you eliminate 4 positions, that would only reduce your budget by $14,000. At what cost, many of these children look to their coaches for guidance and leadership because they don't get it at home. I see a lot of panick going on, this is a temp economic downfall. Sure the belt needs to be tightend where it can, but no decisions, I repeat, no decisions should be made that have long term effects on campus. The rainy day fund will pick up some this year and administrators will have time to make adjustments going forward. Coaching seems to be the easy target, but really with little impact on the budget.
[/quote]

[b]4 positions equals more like 200k[/b].  Districts who cut these positions will not be keeping the employee for other purposes.  I am sure that there are many, many coaches who would gladly give up athletics and just stay on in their other roles for the district.  This will not be the case.


Somethings to ponder..

In 07-08 Texas was 41st in per pupil spending among the States.  In that same year we were 48th in taxation (sales, income, excess etc.)
The year before in 06 Texas came up with a new funding system that reduced everyone's property tax across the state by 1/3rd.  (Federal court cases made them come up with new funding system)
--this was to be replaced by a business tax.  (it brings in BILLIONS LESS than what was promised)
--they forced your county appraisal district to appraise "fairly" at that same time.  How has that worked out for you?  I now have a lower tax rate and a home that has grown in value @ 50% in the last 5 years.  Do the math and you can see that "tax break" has evaporated.

On to the business tax.  [url=http://www.window.state.tx.us/news/60515letter.html]Strayhorn letter to Perry tells you all need to know.[/url]  (Notice the 2006 date on this one folks, this was our previous Comptroller telling Perry at the fallacy of their plan.)


The bottom line is Texas has always expected schools to do more with less and now they are demanding even more with even less and blaming the need for less on anyone they can point a finger at:  over-abundance of administrators, over-abundance or specialists, over-abundance of coaches, and over-abundance of every other position in the district.

Why not fund education at a level that the constitution demands? 

Of course we have some fluff that can be trimmed.  Every organization does.  Trust me it is being trimmed.

Shouldn't we be demanding that the State provide those billions they promised whenever they rewrote the public funding laws? 





[/quote]

Not if they continue to teach. You are only removing the coaching stipend. All I have read is how cutting coaches will trim the budget. What I have tried to stress is that most, especially the young ones teach also. I don't believe anyone is supporting of cutting teachers. Coaches seem to be the easy targets. yet will result in very little of a budget reduction.
[/quote]

I agree that no one is supporting the cuts.  Where coaches are going to be squeezed is the situations where they aren't in the classroom or more than are needed are in the gym to man PE classes.  There definitely will be fewer coaches on staffs because many districts have multiple coaches per PE class.  Right or wrong this will be part of the outcome of this budget crunch.  Any perspective coach should heed this warning and make yourself valuable by being able to teach in a regular classroom.  PE jobs are going to be few and far between in the years ahead.

[mat]

[quote name="Hupernikomen" post="1000610" timestamp="1303354037"]
[quote author=JohnnyT60 link=topic=82980.msg1000482#msg1000482 date=1303335658]
[quote author=Hupernikomen link=topic=82980.msg999853#msg999853 date=1303262052]
[quote author=JohnnyT60 link=topic=82980.msg999436#msg999436 date=1303225662]
Reducing coaching positions has a minimal impact on the budget. Assuming you eliminate 4 positions, that would only reduce your budget by $14,000. At what cost, many of these children look to their coaches for guidance and leadership because they don't get it at home. I see a lot of panick going on, this is a temp economic downfall. Sure the belt needs to be tightend where it can, but no decisions, I repeat, no decisions should be made that have long term effects on campus. The rainy day fund will pick up some this year and administrators will have time to make adjustments going forward. Coaching seems to be the easy target, but really with little impact on the budget.
[/quote]

[b]4 positions equals more like 200k[/b].  Districts who cut these positions will not be keeping the employee for other purposes.  I am sure that there are many, many coaches who would gladly give up athletics and just stay on in their other roles for the district.  This will not be the case.


Somethings to ponder..

In 07-08 Texas was 41st in per pupil spending among the States.  In that same year we were 48th in taxation (sales, income, excess etc.)
The year before in 06 Texas came up with a new funding system that reduced everyone's property tax across the state by 1/3rd.  (Federal court cases made them come up with new funding system)
--this was to be replaced by a business tax.  (it brings in BILLIONS LESS than what was promised)
--they forced your county appraisal district to appraise "fairly" at that same time.  How has that worked out for you?  I now have a lower tax rate and a home that has grown in value @ 50% in the last 5 years.  Do the math and you can see that "tax break" has evaporated.

On to the business tax.  [url=http://www.window.state.tx.us/news/60515letter.html]Strayhorn letter to Perry tells you all need to know.[/url]  (Notice the 2006 date on this one folks, this was our previous Comptroller telling Perry at the fallacy of their plan.)


The bottom line is Texas has always expected schools to do more with less and now they are demanding even more with even less and blaming the need for less on anyone they can point a finger at:  over-abundance of administrators, over-abundance or specialists, over-abundance of coaches, and over-abundance of every other position in the district.

Why not fund education at a level that the constitution demands?  

Of course we have some fluff that can be trimmed.  Every organization does.  Trust me it is being trimmed.

Shouldn't we be demanding that the State provide those billions they promised whenever they rewrote the public funding laws?  





[/quote]

Not if they continue to teach. You are only removing the coaching stipend. All I have read is how cutting coaches will trim the budget. What I have tried to stress is that most, especially the young ones teach also. I don't believe anyone is supporting of cutting teachers. Coaches seem to be the easy targets. yet will result in very little of a budget reduction.
[/quote]

I agree that no one is supporting the cuts.  Where coaches are going to be squeezed is the situations where they aren't in the classroom or more than are needed are in the gym to man PE classes.  There definitely will be fewer coaches on staffs because many districts have multiple coaches per PE class.  Right or wrong this will be part of the outcome of this budget crunch.  Any perspective coach should heed this warning and make yourself valuable by being able to teach in a regular classroom.  PE jobs are going to be few and far between in the years ahead.
[/quote]

As long as PE is required coaches are needed in the gym, not multiple coaches at a time, but coaches are needed.

Another way to look at things; a coach that teaches fills the classroom spot. Then you also get a sport coach for a little stipend. Double value

[ispeakjive]

As long as PE is required coaches are needed in the gym, not multiple coaches at a time, but coaches are needed.

Another way to look at things; a coach that teaches fills the classroom spot. Then you also get a sport coach for a little stipend. Double value
[/quote]


I understand what you mean by that, but unfortunately, most administrators are going to have a different view.  From their perspective, a coach is not necessarily giving them double value, but half.  In a block schedule, four period day, if a teacher / coach teaches two periods of a core subject and has an athletic period and his / her conference period, the administrator views that as losing two periods of classroom instruction over the course of two block schedule days.  Understand, I am not advocating this, but that is how a lot of administrators view teacher / coaches. 

[Guest speechless]

Do you people not understand that 98% of coaches are teachers also?  Some of the comments insinuate otherwise.  The coach that has no classroom duties is a very rare breed...usually just AD/HD FB coaches.  It is illegal in Texas to be a high school coach without being a full time employee of the district.

[ispeakjive]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I understand that completely.  But, I also know that in a couple of districts that I was in that you usually had the OC and DC that had two athletic periods and maybe taught one PE class.  Not to take away from what they did in athletics, but from an administrator's perspective and scheduling classes, they don't bring anything to the table as far as core subjects.  I understand that is not the norm, but that situation exists in most 4A and 5A districts. 

Again, if you look at block scheduling and two four period days, a regular teacher teaches six core subject classes over the course of those two days while a coach may teach three to four.  If the funds are there, I am all for having as many coaches as you can afford; that's how I made my living for several years.  But, if the money isn't there, you have to focus on core subjects.  My bet would be that instead of just mass lay-offs of coaches, you will instead see them just put into the classroom with a full slate of classes and no coaching duties (for those who teach core subjects).  If I were a PE teacher / coach right now, I would be a little worried. 

[Guest speechless]

If a district is on block scheduling in this day and age then they are wasting money to begin with

[shermdog]

Better look at what the house is wanting to do with HB 400.  It will run off older teachers and scare new graduates from teaching.  I have already heard people say they will get out ASAP if this bill passes.  Young kids are watching and changing majors.  Nephew is seriously considering changing with all the uncertainty. 


HB 400 can reduce your pay, increase your class size, hold you more accountable and give you less money to work with in the class room.

This bill will do more to harm education than help it.

[smitty]

Although it's not a pretty sight, if the money's not there, something has to be done. 


[quote name="shermdog" post="1001974" timestamp="1303704473"]
Better look at what the house is wanting to do with HB 400.  It will run off older teachers and scare new graduates from teaching.  I have already heard people say they will get out ASAP if this bill passes.  Young kids are watching and changing majors.  Nephew is seriously considering changing with all the uncertainty. 


HB 400 can reduce your pay, increase your class size, hold you more accountable and give you less money to work with in the class room.

This bill will do more to harm education than help it.
[/quote]

[belle-mere]

About HB 400. I'm not pleased with all of it, but it makes public edu more like private business. We have to stay w/in our means & have proven results (accountability). That said, if teachers are abused, two things will happen:  people will leave the profession or teacher unions will get a foothold in TX.  IMHO, there will be a huge teacher shortage in a couple of years because the young folks will turn to other professions & older folks will be retiring. Then, the state will have to sweeten the pot to attract new teachers. In the meantime public edu will try to do more with less, but it can't do that indefinitely.