coaching contracts

default

Member

• Mar 1, 2008

• #1

It's my understanding that a school is mandated to hire a teacher in their school system if they want a coaching position over someone who doesn't work for the school. Someone told me this comes from OHSAA, another said it's the teacher's union. So is there really such a rule and where did it originate from?

 

default

Member

• Mar 1, 2008

• #2

Teachers get first dibs at our school.
That hurts the kids sometimes with teachers getting the extra income verses hiring someone with more experience.

 

default

Member

• Mar 1, 2008

• #3

Ive had the pleasure of twice getting the shaft with this. Its a teachers union rule not OSHAA, that a union member be considered over non union members UNLESS they arent experienced. The non member could be then be hired over the member. Good luck with ever seeing that done however.....

 

default

Member

• Mar 1, 2008

• #4

I see it happen all over the place. There are numerous coaches in Ohio who are not on staff.

 

default

Member

• Mar 1, 2008

• #5

Our School will give it to teacher regardless if they our qualified or not. We have and have had very talented travel ball laden team and once again gave job to very unqualified coach. Oh but shes a teacher and has put her time in Some of these athletic directors have to step up and do whats right for the girls not what is easy. Ours seem to take the easy way out. >

 

default

Member

• Mar 1, 2008

• #6

Thanks for the advise guys. It is unfortunate that teachers with bad coaching abillity can get the nod ahead of a good non-teaching coach but our situation is opposite. We have a horrible non-teacher as varsity coach but we also have a new teacher who played HS ball at Hilliard Davidson and college ball at University of Dayton. She took the middle school coaching position but she would be MUCH more effective and appreciated as Varsity coach. I can't imagine us finding anyone better for the job. I'm sure she would be excellent at helping develop the middle schoolers but it all goes to waste once the current varsity coach gets ahold of them making their high school playing days a miserable experience.

 

default

Member

• Mar 1, 2008

• #7

Well, just tell her to play the union card and your problems are solved...

 

default

Member

• Mar 1, 2008

• #8

I would ask when does tenure start otherwise she may not be able to force the issue if she wanted the varsity job.

 

default

Member

• Mar 1, 2008

• #9

Not only does our school district have to give the job to a teacher first, but the teacher makes a percentage of their salary as pay whereas a non-teacher get a flat rate. Also, all of the coaching positions that teacher holds are figured into the calculations for the percentage. In one case we had a teacher making over $6000 for coaching a single sport. The flat rate for a non-teacher was $1600. This same district can't understand why the voters won't pass a 10 mil levy.

 

default

Member

• Mar 1, 2008

• #10

It's actually state law that a "qualified" teacher get a job over a non-teacher. I don't remember the exact cite, but it's the law. They did pass a new law, though, that a district does not have to replace a returning non-teacher if a qualified teacher says she wants the position.

I would certainly imagine the union was behind the original law, which I think is a bad law. Why not simply hire the best person for a coaching job? If an AD wants to give points to a candidate because he is a teacher or in the building, fine, but tying the AD's hands with a law might be in the best interest of the teacher's union, but not the student/athletes.

 

default

Member

• Mar 2, 2008

• #11

Since Joe said it's a state law I did a little digging and here is what I came up with under ORC section 3313.53 and it seems to be a current statute as of March of 2007.

(D) (1) Except as provided in division (D)(2) of this section, a nonlicensed individual who holds a valid pupil-activity program permit may be employed under division (C) of this section only after the school district?s board of education adopts a resolution stating that it has offered such position to those employees of the district who are licensed individuals and no such employee qualified to fill the position has accepted it, and has then advertised the position as available to any licensed individual who is qualified to fill it and who is not employed by the board, and no such person has applied for and accepted the position.

This means a QUALIFIED employee, usually a teacher gets first nod over a non teacher depending on how they define "qualified".
Now part II below adds something else

2) A board of education may renew the contract of any nonlicensed individual, currently employed by the board under division (C) of this section for one or more years, without first offering the position held by that individual to employees of the district who are licensed individuals or advertising the position as available to any qualified licensed individuals who are not currently employed by the board as otherwise required under division (D)(1) of this section

What this means is that if they already have a non teacher in a coaching position they can continuously renew that contract without having to give it to a teacher even if the teacher wants the position.
However knowing how the game is played in the school system it doesn't mean that a school's teacher's union can't tighten the screws down on the administration and get their way on who gets the contract. Back room politics really havn't changed much over the years. :-/

 

default

Member

• Mar 2, 2008

• #12

Thanks for the cites, hockey. I remember a few years ago looking at case law and finding out that schools can define the word "qualified" almost however they wish. So there is a loophole for a school that wishes to hire a non-teacher over a teacher, unless that teacher is very clearly qualified, which probably means that the teacher has been a successful high school varsity or college coach.

 

default

Member

• Mar 2, 2008

• #13

You're right in looking up case law Joe. As most people know court rulings can change or modify a law beyond it's original intent and establish legal precident on how the law is interpreted and applied so sometimes there's more to just reading the statute in the Ohio Revised Code.

 

default

Member

• Mar 2, 2008

• #14

It's a boring evening so I looked into the case law angle since Joe mentioned it and it seems renewing a non teacher's contract over a teacher who wants the job may be subject to the individual school district's collective bargaining agreement with it's teachers. I feel just like a lawyer except I'm pretty certain I still have my soul.

 

default

Member

• Mar 2, 2008

• #15

And you didn't get paid for your work, which is also often the plight of a lawyer, despite what everyone would like to believe.

 

default

Member

• Mar 2, 2008

• #16

When I was hired as the HS coach, there was a new teacher apply for the position as well, he did not get it. ?I'm now going on my fifth year as the varsity coach, and no one has applied for the position since I got it, that I'm aware of.

 

default

Member

• Mar 2, 2008

• #17

In regards to Lady_Knights situation the rules seem to dictate that if a school board hires a non teacher over a teacher they must have specifics on why the non teacher was the better choice. Or perhaps Knights just got lucky. ;D Here's a link to a Ohio School Board Association publication that covers coaching contracts.
http://www.osba-ohio.org/Files/Ins_and_outs.pdf ?

 

default

Member

• Mar 2, 2008

• #18

I see nothing wrong with teachers in the bargaining unit getting interviewed first. After all they are the ones who have striked (in some cases) to secure the pay for coaching contracts. Would I want an unqualified teacher in a coaching position? NO.....I would just hope that most rational AD's can keep it together and hire the most qualified candidate.

 

default

Member

• Mar 2, 2008

• #19

And you didn't get paid for your work, which is also often the plight of a lawyer, despite what everyone would like to believe.

Joe, the last time my lawyer did anything for me for free, he sent me a bill for $1000.....

 

default

Member

• Mar 2, 2008

• #20

I guess maybe I just do not understand something, here. What is this all about anyway? Notwithstanding winning, does what is in the best interest of the kids matter? Even though it was a hundred years ago I was always taught to do something the right way if you are going to do it. How is that possible with a "coach " :-/ that does not know or even care about the game, they just need a few extra bucks. We have all seen it happen, I am sure. Hope I am not pushing anybody's buttons here but this is sad. I know qualified people who would be glad to coach for no pay. You gotta love the game. FF