A high school speech communication instructor who also coaches the debate team has drawn a number of conclusions regarding concurrent teaching and coaching. First, forensic programs generally take too much time and energy from classroom work, and an inordinate amount of relaxation and "recharge" time. Forensic coaches who teach need superhuman powers to continue long with the logistics of dealing with the different levels of debate skills and organizing competitions, and at the same time handle classroom paperwork while "on the road." Second, forensic programs may lead coaches to expect that the students they work with so closely in forensics have the same tastes and personality characteristics found in their classroom students. They soon discover, however, that forensic participants tend to be more dedicated to extra hours of work, and to have wider and more eclectic tastes and a more sophisticated level of appreciation for the arts than do classroom students. Third, forensic programs tend to make coaches almost unconsciously expect certain conventionalizations of the forensic world to carry over into classroom speaking. Generally, however, classroom audiences have not been conventionalized in the same manner. Fourth, forensic coaches have the opportunity to become very friendly with team members, but this can inhibit the maturity of participants, and can lead to perceived favoritism in the classroom. Finally, forensic programs stress styles, formats, and purposes that may be at odds with, or at least not include, very legitimate goals of classroom communication instruction. (HTH)