Fabens ISD delays decision on dual-assignment coaching contracts amid staffing and budget concerns

The Fabens Independent School District Board of Trustees on April 16 postponed action on a proposal to use dual-assignment contracts that would combine teaching and coaching roles into a single agreement, citing concerns about district overstaffing and budget implications.

Human resources director Ayda Polanco presented the proposal and said a dual-assignment contract “integrates one contract for two roles,” which could bind an employee to both teaching and coaching assignments and make separation of roles more difficult. Polanco also warned that adding coaching positions could increase recurring salary costs if the district needed to hire additional teachers to fill those roles.

The proposal matters because trustees said adopting dual contracts now could force the district to add full-time teaching positions to get qualified coaches, at a time when the district appears to be carrying extra staff. Polanco told the board the district is currently overstaffed by about six elementary teachers, seven at O’Donnell Intermediate, 12 at Fabens Middle School and 26 at Fabens High School. She provided a cost example that hiring a new teacher to serve as a coach would start “somewhere up in the 58, 59,000” range plus fringe benefits.

Board member Greg Spence, who requested the item, argued the contracts could help strengthen athletic programs and coach accountability but agreed the timing was difficult. “We need to right size it,” Spence said, referring to the district’s staffing levels. Spence moved to postpone further action and asked staff to survey coaches about whether they would accept dual contracts.

Coach Blair, the district’s athletic coordinator, told the board coaches were not universally opposed but raised practical questions about how coaches would be evaluated. “Are we running healthy programs? Are we getting enough participation?” he asked, saying evaluations should look beyond wins and losses to program health, participation and student eligibility. Several trustees said they want a formal evaluation instrument co‑developed with coaches before any contract changes are adopted.

Trustees also discussed interim steps: developing a summative evaluation for coaches, surveying coaches anonymously to gauge interest in dual contracts, and reviewing stipend levels as part of the district’s budget process. Superintendent Dr. Segovia said formal coach evaluations and coach input should be implemented for the 2025–26 school year and noted the district will have a budget workshop on May 6 where stipend options and budget implications can be reviewed.

The board voted to postpone the item; the motion to postpone was made by Greg Spence and seconded by Mr. Hernandez and carried by voice vote. The board did not adopt any change to current coaching contracts at the meeting.

Votes at a glance

- Consent agenda: Moved by Mr. Flores, seconded by Greg Spence; motion passed by voice vote (recorded as 6 in favor). The consent agenda included routine items as presented in the packet. The administration recommended approval.

- Discussion of possible action on dual-assignment (teaching + coaching) contracts: Motion to postpone made by Greg Spence, seconded by Mr. Hernandez; motion to postpone carried by voice vote. No ordinance or contract change was approved.

Next steps

Trustees directed staff to (1) run an anonymous census/survey of coaches and report results back to the board (board members discussed a goal of receiving that input quickly, with one trustee suggesting within a week), (2) develop a formal coach-evaluation instrument with coach input to be implemented in the next school year, and (3) review stipend levels during the May 6 budget workshop. The board may place the item on a future agenda after receiving the coach census and budget data.