Re: "no pass, no play" policy

["John Danahy" <JDANAHY@turbonet.com>]

For a long time the school district had in place a policy that required
teachers to identify students who were failing a class in grades 9-12 and
provide help to those students. The purpose of this policy was to use
extra-curricular activities to support education.  It required that coaches
work with teachers to help students do the work needed to pass classes
before the grades became permanent at the end of semester.
Recent action of the board eliminated that policy in favor of the "state
rules" of allowing a student to fail two classes and still play sports.  The
reason for changing policies was articulated by the high school principle
when he stated it was more important for students to spend time with coaches
than with teachers.  This statement was fully supported by other
administrators and the MEA.  Some teachers did object, but their comments
were ignored by the board.
My comments earlier indicated my belief that the board's support of failure
is an outgrowth of the board's belief in social promotion.  It is certainly
clear to me from this and other board actions recently that education of our
students is not the number one priority of this board, the administration,
or the MEA.
John Danahy
jdanahy@turbonet.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Curley" <curley@turbonet.com>
To: <vision2020@moscow.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 2:00 AM
Subject: Re: "no pass, no play" policy


> In response to John Danahy's recent posting that said the
> Moscow School District had eliminated the "no pass, no
> play" policy for extra curricular activities:
> That is not an accurate statement.  It is true that in some
> regards the amended policy is less stringent than the
> former (which was not a long-standing policy).  The
> current policy is in line with most other districts in the
> state and was recommended as being both more fair an
> more likely to keep "at risk" students engaged in the
> educational process--where we need them to be in order
> to help them.  The policy was universally endorsed by
> school counselors, the high school principal and most
> other administrators whose students were affected by the
> decision.  The board solicited and received a presentation
> on both sides of the issue (including having invited Mr.
> Danahy to speak in favor of retaining the former policy,
> which he did).
> There were good arguments in favor of each position.
> Ultimately I believe the board believed that more students
> would be helped educationally by the new policy--which
> was a return to the policy as it existed before it was
> changed while Mr. Danahy was serving us as one of our
> board representatives.
>
> Mike Curley
>
>