Thursday, June 8, 2017

Proposal re: coaches for City League teams

Anonymous wrote:

"A proposal to allow city employees to coach City League teams -

It's interesting because the article mentions a shortage of coaches in the City League. The PFT contract calls for teachers first (regardless of being less qualified than an "outsider") . For years, successful retiring teachers/coaches were denied retaining their coaching position so a teacher could have the position even if they were less qualified for the position. PPS and the PFT were behind the times as the suburban/WPIAL schools have been hiring the most qualified coaches regardless of employment for some time."


Questioner said...

Could even a teacher have special qualities in that teachers would be familiar with many of the students from school, very aware of what is going on at school, etc?

If the goal is to find the person who is most qualified (setting aside qualifications as a teacher), why limit candidates to city employees?

Works for the City said...

Why limit the candidates to city employees? Because we're talking about the city, and city kids. I'd want a city employee - and preferably a city PPS employee - to be running any city program. City people know city kids. City people are committed to city kids.

And if you don't live in the city, or work for the city, I'd question how much you care about the city.

So let me ask you Questioner, suppose I could find a "more qualified" person to run the Pure Reform blog...perhaps someone who has a decade of experience running blogs. Should that person just be given control of Pure Reform? Or should your demonstrated dedication trump that outsider's "qualification"?

Questioner said...

Haha, anyone who wants to start an education blog can do so at any time!

As for coaching, why a city employee specifically? A lifelong city resident for example may be more familiar with pittsburgh kids than a new arrival who gets a job with the city. Just asking...

Works for the City said...

"why a city employee specifically? A lifelong city resident for example may be more familiar with Pittsburgh kids than a new arrival who gets a job with the city. Just asking..."

That's a very, very good question, Questioner! So how do you balance things out? Who is the "most qualified" for a PPS soccer coaching position, for example?

Is it a lifelong city resident who has never coached soccer, a PPS employee who has only coached for a year, or a Bethel Park resident who has coached for 10 years?

Do we give preference to residency, or to experience? Or do we let some interviewer decide, knowing that interviewers can be biased? I say let the PPS contract decide. What is negotiated there, stands. And that means that for now, PPS employees get preference.

If that becomes too unrealistic, change it during the next negotiation. Until then, PPS employees should get preference.

Mark Rauterkus said...

Hold the phone.

First, thanks for the link to the article and for following along on this matter.

Second, let's get it right. There is not any limit of coaching candidates to city employees. No, no, no. RATHER, there is now an EXCLUSION of city employees to coaching positions.

At present, those who WORK for the CITY of Pittsburgh (i.e., government workers) are PROHIBITED from being hired as PPS Coaches.

NONE of the city employees should be able to get a second job with PPS -- (controller and treasure are exceptions). This effort makes for another EXCEPTION to allow city workers (i.e., Police, Firefighters, EMS, SEIU, Cory O'Connor, etc.) to be employed by PPS too, as a sports coach.

This "LIMIT" is a part of the City of Pittsburgh's CHARTER against "conflict of interest" and is a burden put forth by the city, and not PPS.

There is NO CITY RESIDENT benefit now for coaching. Not being proposed as well.

However, there is a PPS employee benefit for PPS coaching job openings. That's a different matter to what is being put before city council now.

Mark Rauterkus said...

Got to move from other thread....

My input on the topic with links to video testimony and some background as to why I felt this is justified.

Mark Rauterkus said...

Next clarification:

According to sources within Athletics at Pittsburgh Public Schools, there is NOT a shortage of sports coaches.

I'll grant them that.

There was a shortage this year in one school for one sports team as it had one, not two coaches.

In a past year, about five ago, I also got to coach both teams, doing double duty, without any assistant coaches nor extra pay.

I think it is hard to find, hire and retain great coaches -- anywhere -- these days.

Anonymous said...

I definitely know of one rec center employee who coached a high school team for a year or two. He must have done so in violation of the city charter.

Mark Rauterkus said...

I know a Rec center director who coaches WPIAL TEAM, not a PPS team, presently.

This might have jammed up someone who was flying under the radar. It did jam up a guy this past school year, for sure.

Mark Rauterkus said...

To be more clear, it is okay for a city worker to coach a private or Catholic team. So, coaching WT and Central is okay.