Re: "no pass, no play" policy

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

John,

Seems to me I have a record of dealing with issues in a positive and
constructive way, but I'll readily acknowledge I sometimes miss the mark.  I
certainly did not attack Mike.  If you believe I
attacked you, you might stop to ponder how Moscow teachers such as I feel
when you pretty regularly attack them as uncooperative, unprofessional,
unwilling to be advocates for students.  Having better things to do, I have
never gathered data on the content of your e-mail, however it is pretty
clear to a number of your readers--you really enjoy being a bully.

Sue


-----Original Message-----
From: John Danahy <JDANAHY@turbonet.com>
To: Sue Hovey <suehovey@moscow.com>; Vision 2020 <vision2020@moscow.com>;
mike.rush@cableaz.com <mike.rush@cableaz.com>
Date: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 10:33 AM
Subject: Re: "no pass, no play" policy


>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
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>