Re: "no pass, no play" policy

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

Sue and others;
I am not sure where Sue is coming from, so I can only suppose that when you
cannot discuss the issues, your only recourse is to attack the individual.
John Danahy
jdanahy@turbonet.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sue Hovey" <suehovey@moscow.com>
To: "Vision 2020" <vision2020@moscow.com>; <mike.rush@cableaz.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 11:25 PM
Subject: Fw: "no pass, no play" policy


>
> -----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
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>