vision2020
Re: "no pass, no play" policy
Thank you for your well reasoned comments. The idea of coaching time being
more important that teaching time is not limited to this district. It is
indicitive of the importace society places in the 'sport culture'. Does it
really matter in the long run if the football team wins? Or does it matter
more in the log run if Johnny (or Jane) can't read? The choice is yours.
Mike Rush
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Danahy" <JDANAHY@turbonet.com>
To: <curley@turbonet.com>; <vision2020@moscow.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 7:55 AM
Subject: Re: "no pass, no play" policy
> 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
> >
> >
>
>
Back to TOC