Ms. Rodenbough correctly states the wording of the SLC grant:

"Effectively implementing an SLC project requires significant prior planning and preparation, as well as extensive consultation with, and participation by, school personnel, parents, students and community leaders. It is not a discrete activity that can be carried out by a handful of teachers and school personnel without the involvement of the larger school community."

She also describes how this criteria was almost NOT followed at Grimsley. Whew! That was a close one!! I bet the parents are STILL breathing a sigh of relief for what ALMOST happened.

NOW...for just one minute....let's all put on the shoes of the parents and students that live in High Point. This HAS happened to them!! Exactly what the grant above warns NOT to do, WAS done a over a YEAR ago to the Guilford County High Schools in High Point--ALL of them.

Does this help ANYONE understand the plight over here? We are NOT being heard, NOT being understood, and it seems NO ONE cares--not our School Board or superintendent, NOT the city leaders of High Point.....NO ONE seems to care!!!

So, Ms. Rodenbough, breathe your sigh of relief, then please help spread the word that the very episode that you narrowly escaped is alive and well in High Point.

Can anyone empathize with the children of High Point or are they less worthy than the kids in Greensboro???????

Do I understand this correctly? Are you stating that the Editors of the News & Record changed the wording of Ms. Rodenbough's letter to suit their own ideas?

In response to Ms. Rodenbough's letter, I hate to tell her this, but there is tons of data out there to support SLCs. In fact, studies have proven that building gigantic high schools like Grimsley may be cost efficient, but they are detrimental to the success of the student. You do not have to look too far to back that up!

I will admit the manner in which the 9th grade acadamies were presented at Grimsley could have been done a whole lot better. The committee had plenty of time to provide parents with a better overall view of the program, as well as documentation of other programs like it that are working. I also think, it would have been very appropriate to have invited in the parents of the 100+ students who failed (or received at least one F) last year, 100+!!!! That is a lot of children we are talking about. Those parents did not have the opportunity to speak out and talk about the struggles that their child went through. All I heard was how poor little Annie might have too many students in her AP English class and I couldn't help but think that Annie is going to learn and excel anyway.

The real concern, the real focus is on the 100+ that are struggling... One way or another society is going to have to answer to them.

Bottom line, there is a overwhelming number of kids that need our help. In my opinion, money did talk at Grimsley. Shame on all of you.

Quest,

You are correct. I heard they changed Ms. R's letter too. So much for "free speech" and public opinion. I heard they left out a reference to High Point. Wonder why they did that?

Toby,

What parents did not have an opportunity to speak out? I am confused. The N & R publized the Grimsley Forum in the newspapers and emails went out.

Why could they not have attended the Forum that we read about in the newspapers. There were even people there from High Point.

I just don't get it. This meeting was an open forum.

p.s. and don't forget about School Board Meetings. They always have a time for public comment; also you can write letters or emails to the school board and super.

This will be a long post, but I want to let readers know something about the editing process regarding Melanie Rodenbough's article. She and I have exchanged several emails, and I hope we've reached an understanding.

First, here is her original article without editing:

The March 8th editorial, “Making the Grade,” correctly states that parents at Grimsley are worried about the proposed 9th grade academy. That you endorse the 9th grade academy concept as an isolated remedy for students who are failing and dropping out highlights one of our principal concerns: few in our community understand the radical changes proposed for our high schools. Virtually system-wide, yet another serious and far-reaching policy change is being driven by the availability of a federal grant, whose requirements go far beyond implementing 9th grade academies. The small learning communities (SLC) grant changes a large school into a group of SLCs or academies. The grant funds “extensive restructuring” of the school through a SLC project that “will include every student within the school by no later than the end of the fifth school year of implementation.” The option of just implementing a 9th grade academy does not exist if the school is in the grant. And since the grant provides up to $800,000 per school, the incentive to jump into the big pot of money is high.
But at what cost do we continue to chase after every available grant to fund programs that have not been thought through and that do not have community support? Our county commissioners, reflecting the growing sentiment of the public whose tax dollars fund the schools, are disenchanted with leadership that grabs for every new program but still fails to educate our children. We have students who are failing and dropping out in droves in Guilford County. By one count, 61% of black boys and 32% of white boys fail to graduate. There is little evidence that just putting them into academies will solve their problems and may in fact exacerbate problems, as in the High Point schools.
The grant states that “Effectively implementing an SLC project requires significant prior planning and preparation, as well as extensive consultation with, and participation by, school personnel, parents, students, and community leaders. . . It is not a discrete activity that can be carried out by a handful of teachers and school personnel without the involvement of the larger school community.” The latter describes precisely what happened at Grimsley. A good plan for restructuring a school cannot be developed overnight with adequate input from the community. Why not take the time to think and plan together, you ask? Well, you see, the grant application is due.

- end of original article -

Next, here is an email we received from Mrs. Rodenbough after publication of her article:

Hello all.

This morning the paper printed an editorial I wrote, but significantly altered the content in two ways:

1) omitting my reference to the High Point schools as an example of what can happen when school restructuring is imposed upon a school community without adequate input and thoughtfulness, and

2) adding language and omitting other language to make it seem as though this is a dead issue at Grimsley just because the 9th grade academy is no longer being considered. As you know, Rob has specifically stated he is still interested in pursuing the grant – which was the heart of the subject of the editorial piece.

FYI, I am attaching my original piece as I sent it. I cannot explain why the editor made those decisions, but I have written to protest and request that the piece run as I sent it. I will let you know if I receive a response.

Melanie

I sent the following reply to her:

Dear Ms. Rodenbough,

Thanks for your questions about the editing of your counterpoint.

I edited the article and will try to address your complaints.

I added the note saying that plans for the academy have been abandoned because the principal announced that he will not pursue the ninth-grade academy plan next year. It seemed important to let readers know that this is not a live consideration at this time.

The reference to High Point schools was omitted because there is a ninth-grade academy only at Central, not at High Point “schools.” I had the impression you were attributing problems at Andrews to a ninth-grade academy when there isn’t such an academy there.

The last three sentences were deleted because you were simply reiterating points you already had made earlier. Although your article may have been within the 400-word limit, after laying out the letters above I was out of room and needed to shorten your piece by a couple of lines.

In our information box we note that all letters are subject to editing. That goes for counterpoint articles as well. We are not able to consult with all writers about editing decisions. I am sorry you’re displeased with my treatment of your article. If you want to discuss it further, please call me at 373-7039. If you would like to press your demand for re-publication, please call Allen Johnson at 373-7010.

Sincerely,

Doug Clark

Editorial writer

News & Record

She and I exchanged a couple more emails, during the course of which I realized that I didn't fully understand her points and I think she realized that she needed a lot more than 400 words to make them. She has a long post on Allen Johnson's blog, "Thinking Out Loud," under "Grimsley's Choice," which she entered last night.

I am sorry for any misunderstandings but I don't believe the editing changed the meaning of her article, and it was not undertaken to represent any other person's point of view.

Editorials are just that--editorials. Leave them alone or do not print them in the first place.

Also, adding ANY note after an editorial ALSO defeats the purpose of the definition of EDITORIAL--look it up.

Give your readers some credit. We can sift through wrong and right and don't need a watchdog looking over our shoulders as we read.

You need to resist the urge to comment. If you must, save it for the blog site. But adding it as a part of the original editorial is wrong.

I do appreciate Doug trying to understand what I was conveying, and I acknowledge that the subject is difficult to write about coherently in 400 words. However, I still think the editing altered the content. I consulted with my journalism buddy and she agreed that should not have been done without some conversation with me.

Just in case anyone is interested, here is the final email I sent to Doug trying to explain what I was hoping to convey in the editorial. While the 9th grade academy is no longer being considered for Grimsley next year, the grant is still out there and an application will no doubt be filed by GCS in just a few weeks. Grimsley's principal is still interested in pursuing our inclusion in the grant application. The grant application requires that up to a 5-year plan be laid out for how SLC's will be implemented in each school. Who decides which schools will be included in the grant, and what their 5-year plan will be? If it's someone other than the school community as a whole, it seems to me that is a direct violation of the requirements of the grant.

Doug,
Thanks for trying to understand, and I apologize if I did not write the piece clearly. I sure could have used a few more words.

At Grimsley as at other schools (Western and Page being the ones I?ve heard most about) the 9th grade academy was or is being considered as a way of dealing w/ various 9th grade problems. So lots of folks are jumping on the bandwagon: let?s all have a 9th grade academy. I didn?t want one at Grimsley for several reasons: 1) the remedy (for transition problems) doesn?t fit the problem we have (a group of kids who are failing/dropping out who have been by and large failing in school for years), 2) no input into the concept by faculty, parents and students, 3) concern that the 9th grade academy would draw too many resources from the other grades, and 4) fear of the SLC grant and what it would require.

The primary subject of the piece I wrote was the SLC grant, because even though Rob has said we won?t do a 9th grade academy next year, we should still look at qualifying for the grant. Other schools will also be looking at this grant. In fact, the 3 HPt schools that already got last year?s version of the grant could get a piece of this one too. (NOTE: after a careful re-reading of the grant RFP today, I am not sure whether this is true.)One point I was making was that the lure of the $$ can mean decisions are not thought through or input is not given. That is a relevant issue right now: this next grant application will be due in the next 30-45 days. I?m pretty sure a school could find itself in that grant with very little knowledge on the part of parents, teachers, or students ? a mistake and contrary to what the grant itself anticipates.

The primary point of the piece was that no school that?s looking at the grant can just be looking at the 9th grade academy, b/c the grant requires much more ? that all the students be in some form of academy. All the HPt schools have academies (or SLC?s) this year, even Andrews. The three schools were reorganized around the academy theme: ?magnet schools w/ specialized smaller learning academies for students with differing interests to follow.? Technology academies, health care academies, performing arts academies, and yes, 9th grade academies now or in the future. All are operating now under the SLC grant, and as you know not doing very well. Parents, students and teachers had little say in what those academies would be or how they would operate. What kind of causal relation would you require before an editorial could make a connection? No, I haven?t done a study to see what that connection is. But I think it is a fair comment to say that other schools in the system might want to consider what has happened there and think through and be careful before jumping on the academy bandwagon w/out careful study and support from the school community.

I think this is a relevant topic because the topic of magnet grants is also under public discussion in Guilford now. Do we take our schools where the money is, or do we have real leadership that looks at our problems and ways to solve them? Do we involve school communities in the decision-making or do we try to cram through proposals to get some money and hope no one protests too loudly? Does a school invent a 5-year plan in a couple months just to fit the parameters of a grant? That is what I am afraid Grimsley could still do, and others may be doing it too.

Melanie

Let me try and compose this in a manner that will not confuse the audience.

Typically, the students who are failing at schools like Grimsley have parents who can not afford the luxury of receiving those "emails that were sent out" or who have been disenfranchised by the school board and are tired of fighting what seems to be a losing battle.

What I was attempting to say in my previous post was that the committee should have brought in those parents. They should have made a concerted effort to get them in there to speak about the trouble their children had in 9th grade at Grimsley. All I heard at the meeting was a lot of parents saying, "If it is not broken, why fix it?"

However, if 49% of students last year received one F in ninth grade, then something is NOT right! Something is not working over there!

Rob G and his committee are putting forth a good effort to assist students at risk. They want to do what is right for an overwhelming population of children who have been marginalized by the system. What is so devastating is that no one seems to care about those numbers! They are more concerned with the "social structure" at Grimsley.

Kudos to those who care for the underdog!

Toby,

THANK YOU. This explains things much better. You are certainly right that if 49% of students are receiving an "F" something is not right.

Many numbers all over the county are frightening, to say the least. Look at the numbers in the three High Point high schools. It does seem like no one cares and nothing is being done. Look at the Title I schools who would not be meeting their AYP's. Now the funds have been shifted and the school are not "Title I". Now there is no "opt out" so these kids could get the extra help they deserve as these school continue to fail. The schools could have had the extra aid that is due according to NCLB.

At least the Grimsley parents, or it appears like some of them, from what you said, knew about this grant ahead of time and had the opportunity to meet and discuss it.

This was not the case in HP. We don't remember any parents being asked their opinion or a committee being formed to discuss 9th grade academies. There was no public forum. Maybe the principals where told, but the parents didn't know about it. According to Ms. R and the parameters of the grant requirements, community input and parent involvement is essential.

From what I have read about 9th great academies, they could be a great tool in helping many kids. I don't know that much about Grimsley except what I read in the newspapers on test scores, etc. All of the parents should be involved so all of you can decide what will work best for you.

After the past year, the parents at SW are so used to not be listened to. Over 800 SW parents came out before the HP Plan vote and no one listened.