School trip policy report disputed |

School trip policy report disputed

As the two teachers involved in planning and chaperoning high school trips to Canada the past four years, we feel compelled to respond to the Sept. 18 article titled, “Burrell puts brakes on field trips.”

We French teachers took care of arrangements with the tour company with the usual problems with students meeting deadlines — nothing unusual. Some students canceled due to illnesses or personal problems and the teachers each canceled one year for similar reasons — again nothing unusual. We had no problems at the border, despite having foreign exchange students and Burrell students who were German citizens. Students were delighted to hear teachers speaking French to border patrol. The ability to augment the curriculum with real, live experiences is invaluable to a student. Once in Canada, we had very few incidents with students. We were commended by bus drivers, tour guides, hotel management and others about the good behavior of our students.

Although we, the teachers and chaperones, were not consulted regarding this change in board policy, we do not disagree with the overriding, primary necessity of the safety of our children, whether in the United States or elsewhere.

However, we do object to information being printed about us without so much as a question directed to us. It is extremely unfortunate that the climate in the world today is such that children must be denied opportunities to observe diverse cultures and languages in every day life. However, to be subjected to reading information in the local newspaper that is erroneous at best and incomplete reporting at worst, compounds the feeling of frustration with having to deal with unpopular decisions made for us without consultation.

Denise A. Guyer and Kimberly Celletti, Burrell French teachers

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.