From The Desk Of Dr Rodney Clark:
Dear Board Members
In anticipation of my appearing before you in executive session on June 11, 2018, I want to put in writing a summary of what I have now discovered to be the substance of the controversy regarding grading at the Langston Hughes Academy (LHA). Had you but asked me beforehand, LHA would not now be on current life support.
Before I share with you my summary, I ask each of you to examine your own conscience: ask yourself if you fully understood the board policy describing the grading system before suspending Academy personnel with pay for alleged “grade tampering.”
On the eve of your improvident decision, your president was admonished that the board should not engage in a “knee-jerk reaction” not having investigated the alleged complaint(s). (See letter from Terri Thomas to Board President which is attached hereto).
I trust each of you took heed of her admonition before you voted. Some of your members have said the letter from Thomas was not made known to them before the board acted.
The Board President has admitted under oath that she did not understand the grading system as it related to MAS. (See attached pages of Carmen Pettie deposition @pages 120-126). I submit had she and the others of you filtered the alleged facts through the grading policy, LHA would not be in the precarious situation it is in presently.
Before I share with you the rest of the story, I ask each of you to ask yourself whether your failure to conduct an internal investigation before asking for an external review was the fair, responsible, businesslike, or prudent thing to do? Did you even contemplate there would be 109 items, the completion of which depends on the Academy’s continued survival?
Do you believe you are absolved from your fiduciary accountability to the Academy because of some legal advice you may have been given; that by passing the buck to the State Superintendent, you are immunized from culpability?
The advice to those who believe that my suspension with pay is a shield against liability should again seek a second opinion. I beseech you do not let bravado or pride obscure your judgment or be a substitute for common sense. Does not the legal advice you were given beforehand about failing to properly investigate the facts give you cause to reflect on your own acts of omission? Don’t you agree that a dark cloud of dishonesty has been cast over me, my family and my reputation because of your failure to investigate? Was your failure to give me an opportunity to address the accusations against me in any body’s best interest – particularly that of the Academy? I have informed you of the urgent tasks which must be completed if the Academy is to remain viable.
The suggestion that I dismiss the pending litigation can be accomplished only if a public apology in writing is made clearing me of the false accusations.
Now the rest of the story.
I ask that you distil the accusations made against me through the prism of the board’s policy which I believe is belatedly now understood by some of you.
The grading system employed at Langston Hughes Academy is consistent with board policy as set out in the Student/Parent Handbook on page nine.
LHA employs the Municipal Accounting System (MAS) which requires the entry of the letter grade, not a percentage grade. It automatically assigns an average percentage for each grade. An “F” is 55, “D” is 65, “C “is 75, “B” is 85 and “A” is 95. If a student gets an “F” (55) in the first nine weeks and an “A” (95) for the second nine weeks the semester grade is a “C” (75).
By contrast and against board policy, if a percentage-grade is entered in MAS, it automatically assigns a grade based on the percentage, but the semester grade will not yield the acceptable grade. For example, if a student gets a 20 in the first nine weeks, it will assign an “F”. If a student gets a 90 in the second nine weeks, it will assign an “A”. Thus, the semester grade will be calculated as a percentage of 55, so the student would get an “F” for the semester. That result is contrary to our board policy but may explain the outcry you are hearing from some parents, teachers and students.
In my review of one of the anonymous letters, it describes what the writer believed to be the grading system at LHA. Notwithstanding the instruction she has been repeatedly provided before she penned the letter, she still misunderstands her instruction or is in rebellion, like others, against the grading policy of the board.
There is at least one person among you who can attest through his research, should he choose, that there are some teachers in other venues who do push back against the grading system in other school districts which have the same grading policy as is employed at LHA.
I can assure you that the teachers at LHA have been instructed on the proper grading procedure.
As you deliberate and make decisions regarding this matter it is my hope that you consider the following:
A threat was made that if I wanted to keep my job, I must dismiss the litigation. Such advice is misplaced for three reasons:
- My life’s work is predicated upon educating children who have been marginalized in our society. Honesty and integrity is the linchpin in my life’s work.
- This job nor any other will make me cower in the face of such a threat or make me compromise these principles.
- I will continue my life’s work and the truth about me will be told.
As the founder of this Academy, you no doubt believe you are doing what is in the best interests of the students. In the light of what I’ve shared with you, I hope you have a fuller understanding of the facts and trust you will do the right thing for the benefit of the Langston Hughes Academy.
