The school board allow the varsity cheerleaders to miss three
days of school to perform at the Pro Bowl
When Gilroy Unified School District trustees came up with the sensible idea of a districtwide field trip policy, we supported the move, and we still do.
However, experience has shown that the policy that was adopted is vague, flawed and in need of adjustments.
The recent rejection of a field trip request made by Gilroy High School cheerleaders to attend a prestigious competition that would have required missing three consecutive school days demonstrates those flaws. GHS cheerleaders have been participating in the competition since the 1980s; superior ratings in summer cheer camp earn them the invitation to participate in the competition.
After emotional appeals from staff and students, a 5-2 vote nixed the trip that GHS principal James Maxwell originally approved before changing his mind and denying the request, which then went to the board on appeal. During the same meeting, the school board approved three band trips that were on the consent agenda without any discussion. It is, however, worth noting that the band trips involved limited student participation in one case and did not, in any case, involve consecutive days of absence.
The problem is that Board Policy 6153 is too vague and open to interpretation. What is “excessive” school time? Why are three consecutive days worse than three scattered days?
Worse, the policy potentially pits one activity against another. For students to participate in any extracurricular activity, they must maintain a minimum grade point average. That sends an important message that school work comes first.
Students who make grades their first priority should be afforded the opportunity to participate in field trips like the cheerleading competition. Why? Because those students – who get the grades and participate in extracurricular activities – send the message that hard work, good grades and participation in school activities can bring additional rewards.
The board should reverse its position and let the cheerleaders participate in the competition. But that’s not enough. Trustees need to address what constitutes “excessive” absences – in terms both of total number of days missed and consecutive number of days missed.
The policy does not say that excessive absences are forbidden, but that they are to be discouraged. That’s another source of obfuscation that is open to multiple interpretations.
Teachers, of course, require students who take field trips to make up missed work – just like students who miss school for family trips are required to do. But maybe there should be a further requirement. Perhaps field trip leaders should be compelled to outline a trip’s educational component – an essay on the experience or a cultural report – in addition to the make-up work.
Supporters of the board’s decision to reject the field trip request worry that allowing the cheerleaders to miss three days of school sends a message that academics aren’t important.
But by requiring all participants in extracurricular activities to achieve a minimum grade point average and by requiring those who miss school for field trips to make up missed work, the district is sending two important messages: Academics are our first priority, and success brings rewards.
Allow the GHS cheerleaders to go to Hawaii. Clarify the board policy.
