Langston Wertz hits where it hurts

Transfer problems in Guilford mirror Meck?
from the Langston Wertz Jr. blog at

Mecklenburg County has, a bit unfairly, been labeled the transfer capital of the N.C. high school universe. I have always maintained that the issues here only mirror those elsewhere.

A very interesting article ran in the Sunday Greensboro News & Record(by Robert Bell) that claims thousands of kids are moving around schools. I’d suggest you check it out and read at

Given the problems South Mecklenburg had Friday with senior quarterback Jey Yokeley being called ineligible because his grandparents were not his legal guardians and his mother lived in Union County, I think the story has plenty of relevance here.

The current rules in Meck County to slow transferring allow ninth graders to pick a high school to play sports in and attend, so long as that school has room for you. There is some area for abuse there. The rest of the rule, not allowing you to play two sports for two schools or transfer anywhere other than your home school, for legitimate reasons, after you declare your school in ninth grade is strong. The best part requires students to physically move into a new school’s zone, like Independence’s Rod Chisholm did, in order to change schools for any reason.

Could the rules here use some tweaking? Yes. I’d eliminate the policy of choosing a school in ninth grade even though usually the desireable schools don’t have room. I think the school board could help also by not allowing the draw lines to get changed so often. It would be nice to know for the next 10 years that if you go to middle school at Y, you’ll play high school at X, or at least a group of Xs. Right now, you never know.

Anyway, check out the article. Tell me what you think.

here’s a couple of sample comments from the Wertz blog:
I beleive this happens all the time in CMS.(Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools) Kids should go to school where they live. There are kids playing at West Charlotte that live in Olympic’s district. One brother attends Olympic the other atttends WC. There are kids at Indepencence that should be playing at Vance. One student is living with his girlfriends parents so that he can attend Independence.

The 100 girls that try out for Providence soccer grew up in that district and have played soccer on travel teams since they were 9 years old. That’s why the are GREAT PROVIDENCE. The same way that Providence is king in Volleyball, Tennis, Swimming, Diving, Golf, Lacrosse and Baseball. These are sports that take years to learn and require significant practice. Kids don’t transfer to Providence for these sports…..they wouldn’t make the team anyway!

Guilford County needs to establish the open-transfer policy like they have in Forsyth County.

3 thoughts on “Langston Wertz hits where it hurts

  1. What ever happened to the rule that you go to school where you live. This should be the rule. If a kid wants to change schools for academic reasons, as was mentioned in the article, make a rule that he can not play sports and see how many transfer. Most say they are transferring for academics but they aren’t. I can not beleive that families do all these things just for a kid to play a sport. If the kid is good enough he will be seen. I think the Guilford County Schools must crack down on this rule before it get any worse. It is not fair to the coaches, players or commuity supporters.

  2. Magnet Schools have a huge advantage over others in Guilford County. They can accept kids no matter where they live. I think Independence in Charlotte is a magnet school, and the reason they are so dominant. All the top football players in Charlotte want to play for the top team, so they all go to Independence

    I think with non magnet schools, a student can switch to a different school as long as they are willing to pay the tuition. See any problems? Can a Booster club member pay for the student???

  3. 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 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

Comments are closed.