Let us be honest with ourselves, because unless you have family issues, why wouldn’t you play football for your uncle or where your father is an administrator (I’m sure it works out for car rides – referring to the Dudley AD)?..I used to coach football in Florida before relocating into the Greensboro area, and recruiting and transferring was an issue there as well…I coached at a private school, and a lot of public school coaches were upset because they felt that private school coaches recruited players by offering them scholarships to play at the private school…In my opinion, who cares?..I believe the coaches need to worry about making themselves better and coach the players they’ve got to the best of their abilities, instead of worrying about who stole a player from their county or zone…Its ridiculous…While I’ve seen some tremendous players come through the Greensboro area, I just haven’t seen that sole player like Tim Tebow who could carry a whole team by himself…I will admit that the only school that may have an argument would be Smith; however, they need to do some soul searching and straighten some things out at the school first…Someone made a statement earlier in a previous comment, and it was if you have good coaching then kids won’t be looking to play elsewhere…If I was still a coach and had a kid that was supposed to play for me and decided to go to another school, then I’d be looking to exploit his weaknesses on the field…Where does it come into play when coaches just “buck up” and coach? You don’t see Butch Davis crying when a North Carolina player leaves to play at Michigan…Granted, Butch recruits outside of North Carolina, but when does it ever come down to a player having his own choice…Players have their own choices on where they want to sign, so why not on where they want to attend high school?..People may have an issue with transfers, and the same people will mention Independence in Charlotte and not wanting a school to have such dominance, but ask yourself this, do most of the players from Independence go to college to play?..Would your kid want to play a high school football game on ESPN?..If you have a coach who cares about extending his players chances to go to college, while bringing the best out of your child, then why send them to some school or coach that or whom you don’t have faith in?..I know everyone wants a fair and competitive advantage, and I’m really playing Devil’s Advocate on this transferring issue, but I can’t blame a student for wanting to play for a coach he likes and believes in…Let me make something clear, because although I’m not against transferring I do not believe in coaches actively recruiting a high school player at another school…To me, this is unethical, but I can’t, nor will ever fault a coach for talking to a player who comes to them…Now, if for some reason a player does want to leave a school to go somewhere else to play then I feel that that player should lose a year of eligibility; however, the decision still remains with the player…I find it funny when nothing is mentioned when a band member leaves to go to another school for such things as a better band director, or for wanting to attend an IB program…

No team is ever unstoppable…It all boils down to preparation and how much the players really want it…I believe the players at Page are starting to understand that in order to be great then they need to commit themselves….Full commitment to the coaches and offseason programs are where greatness is established…So Frankie, if the Page players are starting to believe and understand this concept, then I believe that Coach Gillespie deserves some credit for getting the message across…Bringing up his nephew was stupid and mute, because Will had a good season last year and will have the possibility of having a good senior season at Page…I’m also positive that his nephew is going to have a good season next year at Thomasville…Dumb and ignorance over something that you have stemming with the coach…Well, get over it…

By the way, please don’t get the Shepard’s going again…

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