Fw: "no pass, no play" policy

["Sue Hovey" <suehovey@moscow.com>]

-----Original Message-----
From: Sue Hovey <suehovey@moscow.com>
To: Mike Rush <mike.rush@cableaz.com>; vision 2020@moscow.com <vision
2020@moscow.com>
Date: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 8:37 PM
Subject: Re: "no pass, no play" policy


>Mike, inane comments from an otherwise intelligent man are dysfunctional to
>the purposes of education in Moscow.  One can expect remarks such as that
from
>John Danahy--his
>agenda is the social promotion of John.  Also its pretty obvious he's
trying
>to distance himself from any blame which might have accrued to him
as
>a board member from the not-so-distant past.   But I expect better of you,
 for your agenda has always been broader and not so self centered.
>And you know, for I am sure your dad has told you,  the purpose of
education
>as he taught, and others did as well, is to ensure that Johnny and Jane can
>read, function, and assume responsibility for their own actions.  If the
>football team wins as well, hooray.  You are a wonderful example of that
>educational process.  Think carefully before you denigrate it.
>Sue
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Mike Rush <mike.rush@cableaz.com>
>To: John Danahy <JDANAHY@turbonet.com>; curley@turbonet.com
><curley@turbonet.com>; vision2020@moscow.com <vision2020@moscow.com>
>Date: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 5:13 AM
>Subject: 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
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>