News-Record.com

I know, offer the same programs at all schools and disallow transfers for any reason. Even if we must raise taxes a couple of bucks per household to pay for it.

It should be the students/parents decision not the counties on whether a student wants to transfer for athlethic reasons. High School sports are becoming more competitive than before. Students are being scouted by colleges for future enrollment. This could mean Athletic scholarship money for some. Face it some High Schools & coaches just don't care about promoting their student athlethes and without scholarship money college is not option for some. Why should we as parents and our students lose out on the opprotunity to scouted by a Division l or II college because our schools don't think it's important or are to lazy to promote their athlethes. Believe it or not some student do go father than college in sports, some even make a career out of it. Thats just to bad if some schools won't be as competitive, maybe they should make it worth it (try supporting the programs) to the students to stay at their school and play. We pay taxes we should have the right to choose where we go, just like we pay tutition and have a choice. You're not going to send you child to a college that doesn't support a program that they are in are you?

Bottom line: Coaches are RECRUITING and parents and student-athletes are willing and culpable parties to it, resorting to LYING about residency/guardianship/rationale for transferring. The argument about "getting noticed" is a bunch of bunk. If your student-athlete is GOOD, he/she will get scouted, regardless of where they are enrolled. This is why they have combines, 1-day camps, etc. that are USUALLY FREE. My son is a HS DB/track guy, and he usually does a good job. The teams we play have some legit studs who are getting recruited. When our THREE YEAR OLD SCHOOL plays hard against these schools (even winning a few), our kids get noticed. Now the recruiters are coming to our place, and we just opened in 2005. Bottom line: What's so wrong with attending the school to which your neighborhood is assigned, participating in the program, and doing what's right. Lying/embellishing/renting an apartment and not moving into it to use it just for the address/"giving" custody to a relative or someone else just so the student-athlete can play for xyz high school is unethical and reprehensible.

Bottom line: Coaches are RECRUITING and parents and student-athletes are willing and culpable parties to it, resorting to LYING about residency/guardianship/rationale for transferring. The argument about "getting noticed" is a bunch of bunk. If your student-athlete is GOOD, he/she will get scouted, regardless of where they are enrolled. This is why they have combines, 1-day camps, etc. that are USUALLY FREE. My son is a HS DB/track guy, and he usually does a good job. The teams we play have some legit studs who are getting recruited. When our THREE YEAR OLD SCHOOL plays hard against these schools (even winning a few), our kids get noticed. Now the recruiters are coming to our place, and we just opened in 2005. Bottom line: What's so wrong with attending the school to which your neighborhood is assigned, participating in the program, and doing what's right. Lying/embellishing/renting an apartment and not moving into it to use it just for the address/"giving" custody to a relative or someone else just so the student-athlete can play for xyz high school is unethical and reprehensible.

The fix is simple. If a student starts attending a school their freshman year (for legit reasons like attending a magnet program), then he/she can play sports immediately. If a student transfers (for any other reason than the entire family moving into the district), then he/she should have to sit out for a year.

If Grimsley and Dudley are not disciplined for the two players mentioned in these articles, then something is wrong. Admittedly, both students/athletes are in breach of the letter and spirit of the law. After dropping out of the IB program, Maynard should have gone back to Eastern and living with an aunt doesn't qualify.

Frank DeFord suggested on the radio last week that colleges should give course credit for athletes, equating play and practice with rehearsal and performance/creation of art work, music and theatre. By that notion, not only should students and parents feel like free agents, the high schools should award grades and attract scholarships for athletic ability exactly as it would for other talents.

And then the students could actually major in and get a degree in a sport. Why not?

If a student transfers for specifically athletic reasons, they should be required to sit out one full year of sports. Plain and simple.

For those of you who are quick to comment, it may interest you to know that there are many reasons for students to transfer. It would appear that Mr. Bell's article not only is unconcerned with the real needs and concerns of students, but that Guilford County School officials are indifferent to policies regarding the protection of students' privacy.

Robert Bell’s article “Era of Free Agents” is disturbing on many levels. I have addressed my concerns to Mr. Bell and he has encouraged me to write a letter to the editor.

Firstly, I find it unusual that Mr. Bell was on Grimsley’s campus to interview the students without an adult present. Both my son and the student interviewed at the same time as he, feel their comments were taken out of context. Had an adult have been present, there would have been someone other than the two students there to confirm this. As it stands the reporter has the upper hand. Since the story is better with the boys’ comments as written, the reporter will of course stand by his story. Due to the nature of the story, if the students attempt to defend and/or correct their comments, it could be viewed as them changing their stories; because their stories are different from that of their parents. If the story stands as written, the boys, their parents, and the school system can be viewed as seeking and approving a transfer for athletic reasons. Either way the boys lose. Obviously, Mr. Bell has no concern about how this story could affect these young people.

I have to wonder why Mr. Bell chose to contact parents only after he interviewed the students instead of before.

Mr. Bell admitted in his conversation with me that he changed the tone and focus of his article between the time he interviewed the boys and when he interviewed me. The boys were lead to believe the article was about the social issues involved with transferring to a new school. Let’s keep in mind these are young people and students, not adults. During the course of the interview, playing football was discussed. My son’s comments, taken out of context, make it seem that he felt he was transferred to Grimsley to play football. This is in no way the case, nor what he said. Mr. Bell appears to have felt content to convey whatever meaning he chose based on phrases he elicited. I understand, from talking with others, that Mr. Bell has the reputation of misquoting interviewees on a frequent basis.

During the 2006/2007 school year, my son experienced difficulties with several of the coaches and several members of the staff and administration at Page High School. While the initial focus of these problems may have been related in part to football, it was certainly not the reason for our decision to transfer our son from Page.

We made the decision to transfer Stefan away from Page, not to transfer him to Grimsley.

Contrary to what Mr. Bell may have inferred, I never stated the reason for the transfer was that Stefan “… had exhausted the advanced courses he could take at Page and that Grimsley offered more”. While we did request Grimsley as the school we preferred Stefan to attend, we did so not because of the lack of advanced courses at Page. We felt it in our son’s best interest to be away from Page, and Grimsley was not only the closest school to our home, but it also offered (in conjunction with Weaver Center) the next level in the Sci-Vis program that Stefan had excelled in during the last 3 years; something not offered at Page. Mrs. Jones, the Sci-Vis teacher at Page and a leading teaching in North Carolina in the Sci-Vis curriculum, recommended the course offerings at Weaver Center as a logical next step. It was Mr. Bell who chose to make Sci-Vis classes synonymous with advanced classes. Obviously, as he is not a teacher, nor a very good researcher, he was easily confused. Additionally, as I told Mr. Bell, Stefan was a minor child when the decision was made to transfer Stefan from Page and as such Stefan wasn’t consulted. The decision was made by his parents and other adults that had his best interests at heart. These adults included the Board of Education who extensively scrutinized our application.

Furthermore, contrary to Mr. Bell’s writing, I never conveyed to him that the transfer was based solely on academics. I just stated firmly that the transfer was not based solely on football. In fact, until we received the approval from the Guilford County Schools, (in late June of 2007) we did not know which school Stefan would attend. That in and of itself should dispel the notion that Stefan was transferred to Grimsley to play football.

Stefan was subjected to a plethora of unfair treatments at Page, not the least of which was being forced to attend a meeting with Head Coach Gillespie, Assistant Principal Cockerham and Assistant Athletic Director Barnes. Stefan was removed from his chemistry class while taking a test, and told he needed to meet with these three adults. Stefan requested that one or both of his parents be present at the meeting. His request was not only denied, but when his mother arrived at the school, she was denied access to the meeting. This type behavior was not only allowed by Dr. Worrell (the principal at the time) and Mr. Lee, but apparently condoned by Dr. Grier and a majority of the school board members.

Sadly, as reprehensible as this was, there were many more incidents such as this; each one worse than the next. I did not feel that it was necessary to go into this part of the reason for Stefan’s transfer from Page with Mr. Bell; however, due to the comment made by Athletic Director Rusty Lee, who was quoted in the article, and subsequent comments I have received from Page Principal Marilyn Foley and Guilford County School Board Chairman Alan Duncan, I feel I have no choice.

I contend that Mr. Lee’s comment, "I can tell you unequivocally (Shepard) did not leave because of academics," was inappropriate, unprofessional, and in breech of the guidelines set out by the GCSS to protect student privacy as shown on the GCSS website. There it is written: “Recipients of student records should be cautioned that student information may not be released to third parties without the consent of the parent/guardian or eligible student”. In this case Mr. Lee would be the “recipient” and Mr. Bell the “third party”. Not only was Mr. Lee incorrect in his quote, he broke policy by commenting on what should have remained private. What is even more disturbing is that it appears Mr. Lee was instructed as to how to respond to Mr. Bell.

That Stefan transferred to Grimsley is public record – he is there. The reasons why or why not a transfer took place are private, and for an official (Mr. Lee) of the school system to convey information about a student is not appropriate. This is where Mr. Lee invaded Stefan’s privacy, and why his comments are in breech of the community’s trust. I have to wonder: if he is so willing to talk about my son’s private issues, can he be trusted to keep other private matters from becoming public?

I questioned Mr. Bell’s use of the quote. I also questioned Principal Foley’s and the School Board’s reasoning for allowing such a quote. Listed below are the comments I have received in answer to my questions regarding the appropriateness of Mr. Lee’s comment. All of the quotes were taken from emails sent to me.

From Mr. Bell, 11/15/07: “…Mr. Lee said he would have to talk with school officials before responding. When he called back, he told me that both Page and Guilford County School administrators had instructed him on what to say…”

From Ms. Foley, 11/15/07: “I can tell you that the reporter gave the slant to Mr. Lee that the transfer was due to Page’s poor academics. That was certainly a perception that would be an inaccurate portrayal of the academic programs here at Page. I was out of town and did not see the article. However, it was my understanding that Mr. Lee stated only that the transfer was not due to academics.

From Mr. Bell, 11/16/07: “I agree: You never questioned Page’s academics in our interview. Nor did I imply as much in my interview last week with Mr. Lee. I merely repeated to him the reasons you had explained to me for the transfer -- that Stefan had exhausted all the advanced courses available for him at Page. I spoke to Mr. Lee this morning and he confirmed this”.

“As I noted yesterday, Mr. Lee said last week in our interview he would have to talk to school administrators before comment. This morning, he said he interpreted your remarks as being negative and that he relayed as much to Dr. Foley last week”.

From Alan Duncan, 11/16/07: “Factually, the statement that is attributed to you in the article is not accurate given the number of Advanced Placement courses offered at Page. The clear inference left by your statement is unmistakably to the effect that Page's academic offerings were inferior to Grimsley's and the Board allowed the reassignment based on that fact. Any reassignment that was permitted for your son was not based on inadequate academic offerings at Page”

It is obvious that someone is not being completely truthful. Either Mr. Bell conveyed to Mr. Lee that my comments were something other than what they actually were, or Mr. Lee embellished Mr. Bell’s comments in an effort to get permission to comment. Either way, it was inappropriate for Mr. Lee to comment. Mr. Lee not only violated my son’s right to privacy, he blatantly defied my request from last year, a request of which Mr. Lee was fully aware: that he (Mr. Lee) was to have no contact with my son nor was he to comment on any situation regarding my son. This is in response to a situation in which Mr. Lee verbally attacked me in a public arena; a situation for which Mr. Lee was reprimanded, as confirmed by letter from Dr. Terry Worrell (former Page principal) in September 2006.

While I do feel that Mr. Bell was remiss in his handling of this article I feel that the comment made by Mr. Lee was inexcusable. The only thing worse than Mr. Lee making the comment is that it appears that his comment was a directive from Ms. Foley and ”Guilford County School administrators”. Apparently it is the opinion of Mr. Lee, Ms. Foley, and “Guilford County School administrators” that it is more important to defend an aspersion, thought to be cast against Page’s academics than it is to protect the privacy of a student, and follow policy.

For all of those who have commented on how wrong it was that my son be transferred for athletic reasons…it was because of the reasons I have stated here, and certain members of the Page staff and administration’s total disregard for policy, procedure and student welfare that my son was transferred away from Page. Fortunately for my son, the School Board decided he would attend Grimsley.

We are pleased that his school experiences at Grimsley have proven to be positive. We have hoped that the positive environment would help him to move past the negativity of his experiences of last year at Page. We are hoping that he will be able to move on to a productive future as a student and athlete, having learned from these experiences.

Unfortunately, due to Mr. Bell’s jaundiced journalism and Mr. Lee’s inappropriate comments, this will be more difficult than anticipated.

J Bruce Shepherd