As parents who expressed concern in last week's Citizen newspaper about a skit in a Spanish class at Sandy Creek High School, we watched and listened with great interest as various interpretations of the skit were purveyed and as school administration jumped to the defense of the teacher responsible for the incident in question.

For those of you who may not recall, on April 21, the day after the Columbine shootings, a first period Spanish class at Sandy Creek was greeted with two masked banditos, wielding water guns and yelling in Spanish.

According to the administrator who later explained, and defended, the incident on the Neal Boortz show this past Thursday, the students were "robbing for candy." Apparently "water pistol" was one of the vocabulary words and the skit represented a portion of the day's lesson plan.

As parents of students at Sandy Creek High School, we were appalled at the timing but equally concerned and baffled about the alarming lack of judgment and good common sense in choosing such an inappropriate forum to demonstrate a lesson.

The teacher in question was described by the administration as excellent. While she felt bad about the unfortunate timing of the skit, apparently she saw no problem with the role playing activity itself. "It is a shame that this [controversy] is happening to someone who is an excellent teacher," stated the administrator on the radio talk show, as if this was some sort of external event happening to her for which she bore no responsibility.

Having two students who have truly been the beneficiaries over the years of some of Fayette County's excellent teachers, we feel compelled to defend those who are the fitting recipients of the highest accolade, excellence.

Teachers have often sought in recent years to convey to administrators the need to be supported and defended by administration, particularly in the area of disciplinary issues, and rightfully so. In these areas administrators are slow to defend the role of teachers and too quick to safeguard the school from litigious liability.

Yet in the realm of academic license, administrators seem compelled to defend even the most senseless actions which demonstrate, at best, a poor excuse for education. By defending the indefensible, has not the sanctity of true excellence in teaching been tarnished? Have we not in effect demoted those exemplary models of educational integrity by defending this teacher's actions and ascribing to her the very highest level of achievement, excellence?

Surely she did not mean to show such poor judgment, and surely one mistake need not be insurmountable, but should there not be consequences for such a lapse?

Please do not tell us this lesson plan is the product of an excellent teacher. Our children have sat under the tutelage of teaching excellence on numerous occasions. Please do not insult the teachers in our community who strive on a daily basis to bring wisdom, honesty, and truth to their classrooms for the sake of defending one who brought none of the above to hers on the morning after Littleton.