500 Students Walk Out - WMUR Coverage

WMUR covered the Oyster River student walkout Thursday morning: 500 Students Walk Out Of School. The article includes video of the event and quotes Superintendent Colter supporting the students:

Superintendent Howard Colter said they were "very courteous" and a few representatives met him in private.

"We are not going to discipline students for walking out to share such an important message in such a thoughtful and respectful way," he said. [Read More]

Editors note: Original blog post converted to pull quote and link at the request of Hearst Corporation.

Anonymous Comment Feature Removed

I've decided to turn off the Anonymous comments. It seems as if the community has vented and the comments then descended into blame, petty arguments, and mudslinging. If you would like to post anything, you are all welcome to do so, however, you need to register for a Google ID. It is a free and painless process. The link is here:

Create a Google Account

Also, Fosters wrote an article regarding last nights meeting. The text is below.

Article published Apr 14, 2011
Failure to select Oyster River principal draws public fury

DURHAM — Students, teachers and parents have called the rejection of the nomination for a new high school principal "shocking" and are upset with the School Board's response to its decision.

As Durham police patrolled the parking lot and school hallways as a precaution, about 60 community members filled the meeting room, talking about why they were angry with the School Board.

Others who could not find a seat sat in the hallway watching the meeting on televisions.

"You screwed these kids the other night, " said resident John Collins during public comment. "You screwed them."

Echoing the response of other community members, parents and students who were present, Collins said he was unhappy the School Board had not chosen a permanent principal to replace Laura Rogers, who will be leaving at the end of the year.

Since mid-February, the 15 members of the high school principal search committee sifted through 44 applications, narrowing the field down to two final candidates, Justin Campbell and Robert Thompson.

Campbell is the director of academic studies at Milford High School and Thompson is currently the dean of students at Souhegan High School in Amherst.

At Monday's School Board meeting, both candidates responded to questions from school board members. The meeting then went into a nonpublic session where board members heard Superintendent Howard Colter nominate his preferred candidate, Campbell, to fill the open position.

He said he made his decision based on Campbell's teaching background, past administrative experience and that he was currently working on his doctorate at the University of New Hampshire.

"Both our candidates were outstanding," Colter said. "But you pick the person you think is the best fit, and I felt that Justin's teaching background, education and experiences as administrator gave him a bit."

However, board members voted 4-3 against the nomination, with members James Kach, Megan Turnbull, Ann Lane and Jocelyn O'Quinn voting in the majority.

Henry Brackett, Krista Butts, and Anne Wright supported Colter's nomination.

Julie Reece, who worked on the search committee, said the group was not given any formal criteria on how to select a candidate. Members met and discussed what would make a good principal and they came up with questions for interviews.

She said she was shocked when she learned neither candidate was chosen.

"They were in nonpublic for over an hour and when they came back, it was apparent things hadn't gone the way we had anticipated," she said.

The committee has not learned what, if any, steps it will need to take to continue a search for a new principal.

During Wednesday's meeting, board members went into a 10-minute nonpublic session to discuss what they wanted to make for a public statement. After returning to the meeting, members discussed at length how they wanted to word their public statement about Monday night's decision.

With a previously written statement by O'Quinn, members said they made their decision by considering the "pending state budget" and the superintendent's departure in 2012.

Members also said they did not receive enough time to consider the candidates during Monday's meeting because Colter had immediately announced his nomination during the nonpublic session.

Community members were allowed a second time to speak before the board.

Many claimed the board was trying to do "damage control" and were "throwing Colter under the bus" as an excuse for its decision. Others said they are disappointed the board was citing possible future budget constraints as a reason for not hiring a principal.

ORHS junior Riley Maynard, who signed the "We Need A Principal" sign that hung in the meeting room, said she was upset the board had not listened to the students who wanted Campbell to become principal.

"We knew who we wanted," she said. "The two guys were incredible, but once it got to the School Board, it got shut down. It was disappointing."

Maynard said she doesn't expect the candidates to come back before the board, but would like to know why there was no explanation for the rejected nomination.

"If we could have a permanent principal, why wouldn't we?" she asked.

Other students have said they want answers, not to hear the board blame Colter for not nominating a second candidate. Many students at the meeting said they are planning a walkout Thursday morning in response to not hearing answers from board members.

"I felt very proud of the students coming out here and speaking up," said state Rep. Jenna Roberts, D-Durham, after the meeting. "Clearly people want to get things off their chest."

School Board Student Representative Cody Jacobsen said after the meeting that he did not think the board was giving the community an answer that was sufficient.

"Frankly, I don't see any reason why they should wait until April 27," he said. "They aren't going to hear anything from Concord by then."

The School Board plans to discuss the impact of the decision at its April 27 meeting and to talk about what is the next step for the district to fill the position.

Letter From a Member on the Principal Selection Committee

I was a community member on the principal search committee.  Below I am sharing my personal opinion and experiences on the committee.

This is why it should be somewhat of a rubber stamp.  The board’s job is not to micromanage, and it is troubling to me that for the board to step in and apparently micromanage in such an arbitrary manner at the last hour when they set no criteria at the beginning.  In any case, the board often delegates duties.  In some cases, the board certainly has greater perspective and more knowledge than those to whom they delegate.   This is not the case with a principal search.  Here is why (this is going to be long, please be patient)—

The board interviewed the final candidates only once.  The board only saw the resumes of the final two candidates.  Yes, I completely agree with all of you who say that the resumes of these two final candidates might not be as impressive as you would have liked to have seen.  We can quibble over what kind of experience is relevant and how much.  Again, no criteria were set by the board.  We were not charged with finding a person with a specific type or length of experience.  I think that would have narrowed the search and might have led us to miss an outstanding candidate who was ready and eager to become principal. Plus, I think that almost everyone can agree that there are more to people than their resumes.  This is why the board generally trusts the search committee and the process.

 I am not going to share anything specific about particular applicants.  Remember, that with all 44 applicants, they are human beings with lives and careers at stake.  This is why much of the information is kept confidential.  While the board only saw the resumes and did one interview, this is what the search committee saw—

I should start by saying that at the beginning of the process we were told that each piece of information and each experience with an applicant was part of the overall selection process.  Principals deal with lots of different types of people in lots of different ways.  They must be able to communicate with different types of people in different ways, so each interaction we had or witnessed with an applicant was to be considered.  I described it to my kids as feeling like I was a judge on a reality tv show.

The board read the resumes of the finalists.  We read 44 resumes, cover letters, transcripts, and letters of recommendation.   Of course, you can bet all 44 had good letters of recommendation.  The letters or recommendation are revealing in the specifics experiences and stories that people relay and also some of the specific personality traits that people may describe.  They are also revealing in what is not included.  For example, if most candidates have a letter of recommendation from a student and one candidate does not, what does that mean?  Does this candidate not value students?  Do students not like this candidate? 

There was one candidate who I thought had an incredible resume.  If I could have hired this candidate based on the resume alone, I would have done so.  However, there was something in a recommendation letter from a parent that was just a little bit odd.  It kept nagging at me.  I did a google search and found this candidate had his own fan page on facebook.  Hmmm.  I read through an entire year’s worth of postings and came to the realization that this candidate was not a good fit.  This candidate did not make the first round.  In our committee meetings, we discussed these types of things. Other committee also did google searches on candidates for various reasons—red flags in cover letters, to verify something on a resume, etc…

We also interviewed the candidates more than once, and we were sent correspondence that the candidates sent to the Superintendent thanking the committee for interviews,  proposing topics for second round interviews, even correspondence relating to our site visits.  We judged and discussed all of this.

Once the we had finalists and they had made let their current districts know they were finalists, the committee was asked to find out what we could about the candidates from people we may know. If we knew of anyone on their districts or former districts, we were to ask them about these candidates.

We visited their schools.  Before going, we were told how revealing this could be.  Someone I know who was on a previous search committee told me to keep my eyes open and that when she had done a site visit before she had learned some troubling things about a candidate.  

At our site visits, we met with their current supervisors, interviewed parents, teachers, school board members, and students.  Again, you can bet that the people we met said very nice things about each candidate.  And, again, we were looking deeper than that.  We were listening and evaluating to their stories, to their funny, triumphant, and sad experiences.  We were evaluating for fit with our district.  I was very moved by the people we met with at each site visit who were very generous with their time and with sharing these experiences with us. 

In addition to these interviews, we toured each school.  Why check out their schools?  The culture and atmosphere can tell you a lot about a candidate.  Plus, a candidates interaction with students in the hallway, teachers, cafeteria workers are all very revealing.

The candidates also each spent a day at our school.  They were interviewed by students.  They also met with other administrators in the district.

Then, there was the community tea.  Yes, the format may not have been ideal for the community members.  I have been to a couple of these teas as a plain clothes community before, and this is how they are structured.  Someone asked me at the tea if we could have the candidates sit down and answer questions. I told this person that this was the format that the candidates were given, and I didn’t think it would be fair to change it on the fly.  For the next search, perhaps?  However, for those of us on the search committee this is a great format.  We were those people standing around the edge of the room looking like the secret service.  It was great to watch the candidates be bombarded by community members with all sorts of questions.  I eavesdropped a little. I heard community members ask very direct questions in a respectful way.  I also heard a community member or two being somewhat abrasive.  I was a little nervous, by this, of course, but then realized this is part of it.  Principals need to deal with all sorts of people in all sorts of moods.  It is not a job for the thin skinned.

After the community tea, the search committee met again.  We went through the community feedback forms.  I think I am not breaching confidentiality if I say that they were overwhelmingly positive.  We also heard about the student feedback forms.  Those of us who went on the site visits gave our impressions.  We shared other information that we may have learned or heard about each candidate.  We then voted for our recommendation.

So, then, why have the board interview two candidates?  Well, this is the last test for our candidates.  How do they do before the board? I assume that if our search committee felt strongly that one candidate shouldn’t even make it to the board that this would have been respected.  My impression is that the committee liked both candidates, but that one was just a little bit better fit. I also assume that at the board interview if the candidate we recommended completely bombed then the Superintendent might make another recommendation.

I am friends with several people on this board, but I have no idea why they did not accept the recommendation.  I am quite shocked, actually. Because I feel that the process was so detailed and thorough, so similar to previous searches that board members had participated in and that there is no way the board could have gleaned as much information in their one interview as we did over many weeks of interactions with the candidates, I cannot help but question their motives.  It seems very arbitrary to me.  If there were certain criteria that we as a committee did not meet, then they should have given us those criteria at the beginning or even when the new board was elected.  They did not. 

This also makes me question whether or not they were ever truly committed to hiring a principal, if they truly had open minds.  Sometimes I feel that they made me a party to stringing these two gentlemen along, toying with their careers and expectations.  I have heard through the grapevine that Mr. Campbell is a finalist in the district that is home to Bowdoin College.  All I can say is lucky them!  And, shame on us.

 I read on one school board member’s facebook page something about budgetary concerns. I do believe that the budget is the responsibility of the board. I have no knowledge nor expertise there.  However, it the decision is budgetary, I do have to wonder at the wisdom of it.  The budget currently includes funds for a high school principal.  If we are facing budget issues, then this seems like a personnel cut.  If we need to make personnel cuts, then there are probably positions that we could cut in this district that would have less of an impact on student achievement than the high school principal?

Now, though, I would like to know what the board’s plan is?  They have yet another special meeting tonight that will not be taped nor televised.  Due to a work commitment, I cannot attend. If they reveal a plan, would someone please post it?

Board Does NOT Approve HS Principal Nomination

At tonight's special school board meeting, the final two principal candidates, Justin Campbell and Robert Thompson, were interviewed one final time by the board. When the interviews were over, the board went into a non-public session to deliberate and hear Superintendent Howard Colter's nomination for principal.

In the non-public session Colter nominated his favored candidate, Justin Campbell. The board voted 3-4 to deny the nomination. Colter then declined to nominate Thompson. It is unclear how the board will proceed at this time, given that both candidates have been rejected by either Colter or the board.

UPDATE: I have brought back Anonymous comments as I feel this topic is important enough to allow comments from anonymous posters.  However, any negative or personal attacks will not be tolerated and those comments will either be edited or removed completely.

UPDATE2: I received a letter from a member of the principal search committee this morning that was an update from March 31, 2011.  I apologize that this wasn't posted earlier but I check this account infrequently and only saw it this morning.  Here is that letter:

So, as to the committee—It is comprised of 3 community members, 2 school board members, the superintendent, the director of guidance, the high school library media specialist (who is here tonight) and several faculty members representing just about every department at the school. In total, there are 15members on the committee. 

We held our first meeting on February 10th. This meeting was introductory—we met each other, we learned about the process, the confidentiality requirements, and we talked about important attributes in a principal in general and for this community specifically. The teachers on the committee had spoken with their departments ahead of time to generate ideas. The list of attributes we came up with are: 

A principal who 

•  has classroom experience 
•  Is not a micro manager 
•  Has Collaborative leadership style but is able to make a final, and sometimes difficult, decision when needed 
•  Does evaluations for growth of teachers, rather than just competence in annual reviews 
•  Is accessible 
•  Is flexible, open to a wide variety of student pathways 
•  Will value our traditions, but has vision & isn’t happy with status quo 
•  gets to know students, knows everyone’s names 
•  is intelligent 
•  is visionary—up-to-date on school change 
•  has a positive attitude and a happy outlook 
•  is able to delegate, and 
•  who is a pro-active communicator 

We placed ads in a variety of places. Of course, there was an internal posting for the position. There was a broadcast fax through the New Hampshire School Adminstrators’ Association. Ads were also placed in Ed Jobs NH, Education Week, Fosters Daily Democrat, the National Association of Secondary School Principals, the NH Association of School Principals, NH School Administrators Association, and School Spring. Some of the ads were traditional media and some were online placements. By, the first week of March, we had 44 complete applications from all over the country—the South, The Mid-West, the Mid Atlantic States, the South West, and New England. Candidates had experience in public schools, charter schools, magnet schools, international schools, and parochial schools. 

The applications consisted of a cover letter, CV, transcripts, and recommendation letters. The applications were kept in the high school library in a locked filing cabinet and in the SAU office for review to ensure that confidentiality was maintained. Reviewing the applications was very time consuming. I personally visited the SAU office 3 times and spent between 6-8 hours reading through all of the documents and taking detailed notes. I also asked a few other committee members about the amount of time they spent going through the applications and did a tally to estimate the total number of hours the committee has spent on the search so far and calculate 285 hours. 

On March 3rd, the committee met again to choose first round interviewees. Having never done this before, I went in prepared for healthy, heated discussions. The names were placed around the room. We were given ten dots to place by candidates names in any manner in which we chose--- we could place all of our dots on one person or spread them out among candidates. We discussed minimum dot number criteria debating between different minimum number thresholds. There was also some discussion of some of the candidates who did or did not make certain thresholds. In the end, however, it was a healthy and collegial discussion that led to a consensus on our first round interviewees. 

We ended up with 9 people for first round interviews. These candidates came from 5 different states. 8 candidates accepted our invitation. 

Before the first round interviews, we also decided on the format for the interviews. Each first round interview would be 40 minutes, and we would be strict about keeping the candidates on this time limit to be fair to everyone. We were given sample interview questions that had been used in previous searches (mast way, orms). We chose and modified the questions and ended up with 7 questions. We asked the superintendent to ask the questions so that the committee members could listen and take notes. 

We conducted the first round interviews during the week of March 7th. The candidates answered our pre-set questions. We were allowed to ask follow up questions if we had any, and if there was time at the end the candidate could ask us questions. 

After we completed the first round, we met again to vote on who we wanted to invite back for second round. This time, all of the names were put on a board. We had as many votes as we wanted (with in reason) but could not apply them to just one candidate, i.e., I couldn’t vote for my favorite 3 times. After this vote, there were 2 candidates who were clearly the top. There were several other candidates in the next tier who had strong levels of support from some of the members on the committee. We had a healthy amount of discussion about the remaining candidates before we went back and voted again. At this point, one candidate stood out form the rest. Had there been two, we probably would have gone with both, but that isn’t the way it worked out. So, we ended up with 3 second round candidates, two are from New Hampshire and the third was from out-of-state. 

For the second round, we changed the format with the intent of it being more conversational. We asked the candidates to propose topics, and we came up with our own. We then chose 3 topics and tried to keep the meeting to an hour. We went over each time. 

After completing these interviews, the candidate from out-of-state asked to no longer be considered for the position. We discussed this at our meeting on March 21st and the question of whether or not we should go back and invite other candidates for an interview. In that conversation, it became clear that the committee felt confident that we had two top quality candidates and that going back to candidates who had already been eliminated from the process was not necessary. Plus, there was the feeling that there might be time pressure as these candidates may have offers from other districts. 

This is where we are now. We have two finalists who, I personally, am happy about. Tomorrow, we will do site visits at both of their current high schools. We have meetings set up with students, teachers, administrators, and community members thereThen, next week, each candidate will visit Oyster River. They will spend the day meeting with faculty, staff, students, and administrators. We will be gathering feedback from all of these groups.And, on April 7th, we have planned a community reception for them in the ORHS library. There will be ballots for community members, and we hope to get good feedback from that event as well. I also hope that board members will be able to attend the community reception. It will be held on Thursday, April 7th from 6-7:30 pm in the high school library. Finally, the committee will meet again and go through all of this feedback data and make our recommendation. . The candidates will then have a public interview with you on April 11th. 

High School Principal Search

The Board will be interviewing the final 2 High School Principal candidates tonight.  After the interview, the Superintendent will make a recommendation to the Board in non-public with the expectation that a final candidate will be chosen and offered the position. In light of the budget cuts that are being proposed, perhaps we should look at all the options before this hiring decision is made.

The State is in the worst economic crisis we have ever seen.  There will be downshifted costs to towns and schools which will require budget cuts. 

Why hire a new 6 figure salary when we have staff in our District with similar credentials to the two final candidates?  We can save the $150k+ for a new position by appointing someone internally.  The $150k saved on this position can offset other staff or programs that would otherwise be cut.

In the meantime, we can focus our energy on the new Superintendent.  Once that happens, we will know where our budget stands and we can bring the new leader of our District into the hiring process of this key leadership position. 

ORCSD Fails to make AYP for Math and Reading...added to needs improvement list

DOVER — Recently released state assessment results show many area schools are still not meeting requirements for math and reading levels.

The New Hampshire Department of Education announced 2011 Adequate Yearly Progress reports for state schools and districts, showing 24 new districts have been preliminarily identified as "in needs of improvement," causing the number of districts in the state that need improvement to rise to 87, or 54 percent.

The Oyster River Cooperative School District has been added to the list. It did not meet the AYP levels for reading or math last year or this year. Rollinsford and Somersworth have continued to stay on the district in need of improvement list. Portsmouth schools reached its AYP for reading and was added to the districts in need of improvement status for math this year.

Stratham did not meet the standards for either math or reading this year, despite receiving strong scores last year.

Dover has remained as a district in need of improvement. It's graduation rate has decreased from 87.3 percent to 81.8 percent, but the school met its AYP in reading this year, though not in math. The district did not meet the standard last year in either math or reading.

"In 2010, we had no schools making AYP," said Dover Superintendent Jean Briggs Badger. "But this year we have two schools that made it in reading — the middle school and Horne Street."

Horne Street School also made its AYP in math. Briggs Badger said the district is proud of its progress, but said it still needs to work on continuing to progress. She hopes with the upcoming budget, the district can approve its proposed new math program that could help students struggling with the subject.

At the High School level, Dover students received an index score of 90, surpassing the 89 it was required to reach this year. However, in math, students only received a 68.9, up from last year's 66.6, but still not meeting the required target index score of 72.

Of the 469 school AYP reports, only 28 percent of schools made AYP in all measured areas, and 70 percent did not make AYP in one or more areas.

Across the state, 14 high schools missed the graduation rate target of 80 percent, which included Spaulding High School in Rochester. Last year, the target graduation rate was 75 percent and the number is expected to increase each year in participation of the No Child Left Behind Act.

Spaulding had a 74.7 percent graduation rate for 2010, down almost 12 percent from 2009 when the graduation rate was 86.6 percent.

"The explanation is the rate of our educational disability students is dragging us down," said Spaulding High School Principal Rob Seaward. "It means people in our special education program do graduate, but they take longer than four years."

Since those students may stay at the school until they are 21, Seaward said it takes away from the school's "on time" graduation rates. About 20 percent of Spaulding High School's student population falls into this category, he said.

Other factors may be in place, but the high school will be looking for answers in the coming months.

Across the nation, standards for students are increasing each year and by 2014, all students are expected to score "proficient" in reading and math, according to the No Child Left Behind Act.

"I think more schools each year are not making AYP because of that," said Spaulding High School Assistant Principal Ryan Kaplan.

Moharimet Students Research Ancestry

MADBURY — Alec Damsell, 9, tells a story of his great-, great-, great-grandfather and a long trip across the Atlantic Ocean from England.

"He only had money for one ticket on a ship called the Cosmo," he said, pointing to a colorful picture of a ship traveling across waves.

Alec has been tracking his family history since January, searching online resources and talking with family members to learn his genealogy.

"First I asked my dad, but he didn't know much about the Damsell side of the family, so we did some research and then we found many interesting facts," he said.

Alec is one of many third-grade students at Moharimet Elementary creating books about how their family came to America. They are working with Webster Elementary School in Manchester to collaborate on a project called Creating and Sharing Immigration Stories: Now and Then.

Students from both schools have researched their family's country of origin and talk to relatives about their family history. Many Webster Elementary students have recently journeyed to America and have shared their stories with Moharimet students.

Manchester serves as a National Refugee Relocation center, said Moharimet teacher Susan O'Bryne. Webster also houses an English Language Learner Magnet Program to provide educational and support services to refugee and immigrant students.

"This is to show them that we are all immigrants, we are a nation of immigrants," said teacher Susan O'Bryne. "It's just that they are just more recent immigrants. They have a lot to offer us and we have a lot to learn from each other."

The school is one of 25 across the country that was awarded with a $5,000 grant for the project to pay for food, busing and materials for the students to create books to tell their history.

Leah Zamansky, 9, threw in a little historical fiction, saying the seas were stormy when her ancestors traveled from Russia by boat.

Zoe Pavlik, 9, has a more recent story to tell her classmates. Her grandmother, Anne Lebowsky, came over from Poland in the 1940s. Her parents had fought about where to move when they were forced out of Poland.

"Her mother wanted to go to America and her father wanted to go to Russia," she said. "They got into a fight and he threw all of her mother's pots into the river."

Zoe said her great grandfather eventually went to America by himself and later her grandmother and great grandmother followed.

The best part of the project was cutting out colorful shapes and pasting them together to make pictures to go with the stories, she said.

"It was really fun to make the collages," Zoe said.

Moharimet students have learned their ancestors came from places such as Sweden, Poland and Ireland — to name a few. Students brought in pictures, letters and family trees to show classmates and hope to show the Webster students what they learned.

Principal Dennis Harrington said the students will be traveling to Manchester in early May to share their stories and he hopes to bring the Webster students to Madbury shortly after the trip.

ORSCD Agenda--budget reductions, retirement incentives and more

Be sure to attend or watch the SB meeting on Wednesday, April 6th at 7:00 p.m.

Agenda can be found at: http://www.orcsd.org/index.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&gid=86&Itemid=188

OR's Best Awarded by Science Teachers Association

DURHAM — The National Science Teachers Association announced the recipients of its 2011 Teacher Awards Program, and Celeste Best, a teacher at Oyster River High School, was awarded the Vernier Software & Technology Award. 

The award recognizes and rewards the innovative use of data collection technology using a computer, graphing calculator, or other handheld device in the science classroom. A total of seven awards are presented: one award at the elementary level (grades K¿ 5); two awards at the middle level (grades 6¿ 8); three awards at the high school level (grades 9¿ 12); and one award at the college level. 

Best received her award at a special banquet and ceremony at NSTA's 59th National Conference on Science Education in San Francisco.

Data-collection technology is a mainstay of Best's classroom, her curriculum, and her philosophy of how best to teach science, and she has received several awards for integrating it in her classes. "I do not want my students learning about science; I want them doing science, and the way we 'do' science is through the use of technology," she explained. 

To bring this technology to her students, she spent five years writing grants, and she was very successful in gaining the funding. Now she serves as the "in-house" district trainer for the technology, and her colleagues seek her out to share ideas and develop curriculum, as well as to enlist her help in using the equipment.

NSTA encourages science educators to apply for its 2012 Teacher Awards. Applications and information can be found online at http://www.nsta.org/about/awards.aspx. 

New HS Principal Candidates Announced

The Oyster River High School Search Committee is pleased to announce two finalist for principal of the Oyster River High School:

• Justin M. Campbell, Director of Academic Studies, Milford High School
• Robert Thompson, Dean of Students, Souhegan High School

Our search committee is very impressed by their qualifications and backgrounds.  We invite you to meet them at a Community Tea on Thursday, April 7^th, starting at 6:00 PM and running until 7:30 PM, at the Oyster River High School Library.  Mr. Campbell and              Mr. Thompson will each speak for a few minutes in order to introduce themselves to the larger community.  We encourage you to meet and chat with each of them informally.

The School Board’s public interviews are scheduled for Monday, April 11^th, starting at 6:30 PM. They will be held at Oyster River High School, Room C-124.  The District’s plan is to finalize this search that evening.  The new principal will begin his duties on July 1^st 2011.