In the deluge of convention coverage, some readers might have overlooked the Rocky article about a press conference Sunday at the Denver Art Museum. But the potential importance of that gathering, called by prominent Democrats to challenge their own party on education policy, can hardly be overstated.

Barack Obama is not exactly a maverick on education issues and has been endorsed by the National Education Association. But the good news is that he is not burdened by a long history of denouncing the sort of policies that are needed to reform our schools, either.

For that matter, when he appeared several weeks ago via satellite before the NEA, the nation's largest teachers union, he shocked some in attendance by mentioning two of the union's taboo words: "merit pay." The reference actually provoked some boos.

It's conceivable, in other words, that Obama's educational agenda is at least partly up for grabs. Which is where those at Sunday's gathering - including the school superintendents of New York, Washington and Denver, the former superintendent of Los Angeles (Roy Romer) and the mayors of Washington and Newark - enter the picture: They want the Democratic standard bearer to embrace a reform agenda that doesn't conform in all respects to the party's union-dominated agendas of the past.

Their message: Put the children first, and to heck with sacred cows.

If that means rewarding teachers in creative ways that link performance to pay, so be it. If it means pushing for more charter schools that bypass a district's hiring restrictions, fine. If it involves waiving rules that limit a school's ability to compete, go for it.

In short, if it means ruffling the feathers of unions, well, too bad.

"I was absolutely stunned at the level of union-bashing," said the executive director of the NEA, John Wilson, who was in attendance. "I think leaders who wish to provide a vision and a plan for improving our schools undermine themselves by alienating the teachers ... who have to carry out that plan."

Wilson happens to be right about the danger of alienating teachers. Good schools always involve dedicated, committed teachers. Where he errs is in equating teacher satisfaction with union satisfaction. Sometimes they're in sync, and sometimes not.

What happened in Denver this year is a case in point. When several schools sought freedom from district and union rules in budgeting, hiring and scheduling, the district complied but the union dug in its heels - only relenting somewhat under tremendous public pressure.

Colorado state Sen. President Peter Groff was on hand Sunday to recount similar resistance he encountered from union officials when he sponsored a bill to help free schools from restrictive rules. That bill finally passed and was signed into law, but it was a struggle.

The education leaders who issued Sunday's "Challenge for Change" were not blaming education's woes on unions alone. Many are on record as favoring significantly higher pay for teachers and quality preschool for all children whose parents want it.

Several, such as Romer and New York schools chancellor Joel Klein, believe national standards would help spur achievement and accountability (we wish we were as confident of that).

Still, it was refreshing that a group of ardent Democrats from some of America's urban centers were willing to acknowledge that the teacher unions are a special interest that is not always aligned with the best interests of students.

It's not as if Obama and the Democrats need to repudiate the NEA. But saying "no" every now and then, when the unions put their members' comfort and job security above the interests of kids in classrooms, would be revolutionary in itself.