Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Coach situation: Player A not getting much playing time, needs to work on a few things. Pays HS coach for private lessons - gets better / maybe doesn't get better - gets more playing time. Player B sees Player A pay for lessons and play more, now Player B pays for lessons, etc. Did the kids really get better or is the coach just making it appear that way to attract more business? He/she controls cause and effect.

Tutor situation: Student A struggling in class, needs some help. Pays HS teacher for private tutoring, grades improve (either legitimately in an objective subject or with help in a subjective one). Student B sees Student A's grades improve and now pays teacher for tutoring, etc. Did the students just need some one-on-one time or is the teacher holding back in class to attract more business? Again, teacher has all the control.

Whether either case is above board or not, there is clearly an opportunity for abuse and the perception of favoritism exists.


Totally agree!!! There is no difference. The conflicts for a math teacher and a student are exactly the same for a coach and a player. If it's been addressed for the math teacher it should be addressed for the coach.


I don't know if the conflicts are the same, but if you train a kid in a sport and he/she makes a team, it is looked upon as immoral because that usually means that a possibly deserving kid is getting dropped. If a teacher tutors a kid and he/she gets better grades, it doesn't effect the other kids in the class. Another kid isn't getting bumped from the Varsity Math class to JV.


It may have an impact in the class, my kids AP/Honors classes generally have a curve on the grades that are generally based on the highest scorer so if a kid gets extra tutoring ,scores real high, it may impact the other kids grades in the class possibly bumping them from honors to not.