A market survey commissioned by the town of Durham, in part, concludes there is the potential to enhance the town with 25,000 to 30,000 square feet of new markets.
In that regard, Town Administrator Todd Selig told Foster's Daily Democrat: "What the market analysis concluded is the additional square footage should focus on the noncollege population."
The problem for Selig and the town as a whole is where to build that square footage.
One reason many move to Durham is its ambience — that small town feel, nestled in the trees next to the prestigious University of New Hampshire. That is, until the tax bill comes.
Durham has long been a community divided when it comes to growing its business community. Sure, the nonstudent population would like more services directed at them. But when push comes to shove, neither the town nor its residents are willing to rezone much to accommodate the growth.
Take for example the Route 108 corridor coming in from Dover. "No, that would spoil Durham's gateway," is the response.
What about the once available Mill Pond Center? No, the reasons are more than myriad.
Beyond where to put such businesses is finding those willing to forgo their profits from students and instead depend on "locals" who are available year-round.
The truth is that businesses which tend to thrive in downtown Durham, for the most part, cater to students.
Over the years, storefront businesses as a whole that locate in Durham weed themselves out. They come and go until one or two finds a niche that keeps them going year round, usually driven by profits made off students. The more successful find these profits so great they can stick it out during the slow months when students are away.
There are some exceptions, such as Durham Marketplace, which has a uniquely blended clientele of students and locals.
Another informative portion of the marketing study is the section which discusses home prices.
As Foster's Daily Democrat reported Monday: Even with the state of the economy, the median annual sales price of a single family home in Durham has increased 15 percent over the last two years. To meet the average housing costs, the report suggests a resident must make an average of $48 an hour, or about $100,000 annually.
Yes, you read correctly — "increased" when the markets throughout the rest of the region have been tanking.
That by itself should give local planners a sense of what they are up against. Durham attracts homeowners who, for the most part, can afford to live in the town — at least when they arrive.
The logical conclusion then is they probably don't want to change the town much by rezoning large parcels in easily accessible areas for storefront development.
Admittedly that attitude has changed a bit over time as more and more longtime residents have started to feel the bite of Durham's high tax rate, driven in large part by the Oyster River Cooperative School District.
Before Durham spends any more time and energy implementing the market study, the council should simply ask residents if they are willing to compromise on the aesthetics that brought them to town for a lower tax rate and more services aimed at them.
Based on the town's history, it's a long shot enough residents will say yes, but it's still worth asking.
Friday, April 29, 2011
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Letter from Loren Selig
In the past few weeks, I have been greatly disturbed by a number of events. I am aware that the Board made a decision which some people agreed with and others did not. Regardless of each individual’s or even each group’s opinion, the actions that have followed have been quite unsettling. Some people have chosen to call one another names; others have chosen to make indirect attacks at one side or another through anonymous messages or through published letters to the editor of Fosters Daily Democrat.
In each case, the one element that makes us all a community has been lost: our commitment to working together to achieve a unilateral goal. Obviously each person involved believes his or her opinion is the best way to proceed. Obviously we are a school system in a crisis. We have forgotten how to not only talk, but also to listen to one another civilly and respectfully.
A decision has been made by the board. The question now is not whether or not to revisit that decision, nor whether to attack board members on either side of the decision, nor to challenge our Superintendent of Schools. It is not a question of whether our students and teachers deserve a principal. The key question is how do we move forward in a way that respects all parties and that shows what the Oyster River community is really all about: a commitment to providing our children with the best education possible.
Right now, I call upon everyone in the room, everyone at home, everyone reading Blog posts, everyone writing letters, everyone in the school system, and everyone in our community to return to a place of civility.
Please join me in supporting everyone in our community with dignity and respect and let us continue to be the absolute best we can be.
Sincerely,
Loren Selig, community member, parent of a Kindergartener
Teacher's Guild Contract
Please see attached the Agreement Between the Oyster River Teachers' Guild and the Oyster River Cooperative School Board July 2011-June 2014.
Click Here
Click Here
Foster's Article re: SB Meeting 4/27/11
Board may hire firm to help with ORHS principal search
By RONI REINO
rreino@fosters.com
Thursday, April 28, 2011
DURHAM — More than 400 people filled the Oyster River High School auditorium Wednesday night to hear School Board members suggest hiring a firm to help continue the search for a new principal and pushing for greater involvement in the hiring process.
During the meeting, members began talking publicly about how the district will move forward after board members rejected a new high school principal nomination earlier this month. Board members have heard feedback from community members, students and staff since the decision.
An e-mail dated April 20 from Board Chair Henry Brackett and Vice Chair Ann Wright said the board would ensure a principal would be in place for the 2011/2012 school year. Current principal Laura Rogers will be leaving at the end of the year.
The 15 members of the high school principal search committee took two months to sift through 44 applications, narrowing the field down to two final candidates. Superintendent Howard Colter nominated one candidate, but board members voted 4-3 against the nomination, with members James Kach, Megan Turnbull, Ann Lane and Jocelyn O'Quinn voting in the majority.
Chair Henry Brackett and members Krista Butts and Anne Wright supported Colter's nomination.
On Wednesday, board member Megan Turnbull offered a motion to create a "core committee," made up of three School Board members and Superintendent Howard Colter, that would designate a new search committee and form criteria for principal candidates. Discussions also presented the idea of hiring a consultant to join the group provide direction for the search committee who would help this group.
"It does not seem right to me that the board is only called in to nominate and then we vote at the end of the process," Brackett said. "I would like to see more involvement with the board in making the decision."
Turnbull spoke up saying she was in favor of creating a committee that represented everyone needed, but said she was worried there was no timeline presented and the next school year was quickly presenting itself.
The motion passed 4-2, members Lane, Turnbull, Brackett, O'Quinn and Kach in favor and Butts and Wright opposed.
Brackett then asked for board member nominations for the core committee. Members Wright, Turnbull and Lane originally asked to be placed on the committee, but Wright shortly afterward withdrew. Brackett then nominated himself for the third position.
The committee member vote passed unanimously.
Kach said he would hope the core committee be selected by the School Board, but ultimately, the board said it would be Colter's committee.
Following the vote, about 50 community members and students spoke out, many saying they felt disrespected by the School Board and others saying those speaking out were embarrassing the community — some directing their comments toward the recent student walkout.
One students said he searched online the potential cost of hiring a consultant and said the average cost he found was about $15,000. The board has not provided official information about costs for a consultant.
When senior class President Ethan Hotchkiss spoke, he asked each student present to stand, which included School Board student representative Cody Jacobsen. He asked the School Board to reconsider its decision for the principal nomination and to allow a student to join the core committee.
Luci Gardner said she supported the School Board. The Durham resident said she hoped the School Board would take the time to find the proper candidate and reminded those present they had been voted into their position to represent the district.
"I didn't vote for them to rubber stamp a candidate," she said.
Following the more than an hour public comment session, some board members spoke up, saying they are looking forward to continuing speaking with the community on the district's future and encouraged continued letters from the community.
"I hope we focus on better and stronger communications," Wright said.
However, student representative Cody Jacobsen said he wished the School Board had not moved the meeting's vote about the future of the principal search before the public comment.
"I think you should have heard the community before you made your decision," he said.
http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110428/GJNEWS_01/704289701
By RONI REINO
rreino@fosters.com
Thursday, April 28, 2011
DURHAM — More than 400 people filled the Oyster River High School auditorium Wednesday night to hear School Board members suggest hiring a firm to help continue the search for a new principal and pushing for greater involvement in the hiring process.
During the meeting, members began talking publicly about how the district will move forward after board members rejected a new high school principal nomination earlier this month. Board members have heard feedback from community members, students and staff since the decision.
An e-mail dated April 20 from Board Chair Henry Brackett and Vice Chair Ann Wright said the board would ensure a principal would be in place for the 2011/2012 school year. Current principal Laura Rogers will be leaving at the end of the year.
The 15 members of the high school principal search committee took two months to sift through 44 applications, narrowing the field down to two final candidates. Superintendent Howard Colter nominated one candidate, but board members voted 4-3 against the nomination, with members James Kach, Megan Turnbull, Ann Lane and Jocelyn O'Quinn voting in the majority.
Chair Henry Brackett and members Krista Butts and Anne Wright supported Colter's nomination.
On Wednesday, board member Megan Turnbull offered a motion to create a "core committee," made up of three School Board members and Superintendent Howard Colter, that would designate a new search committee and form criteria for principal candidates. Discussions also presented the idea of hiring a consultant to join the group provide direction for the search committee who would help this group.
"It does not seem right to me that the board is only called in to nominate and then we vote at the end of the process," Brackett said. "I would like to see more involvement with the board in making the decision."
Turnbull spoke up saying she was in favor of creating a committee that represented everyone needed, but said she was worried there was no timeline presented and the next school year was quickly presenting itself.
The motion passed 4-2, members Lane, Turnbull, Brackett, O'Quinn and Kach in favor and Butts and Wright opposed.
Brackett then asked for board member nominations for the core committee. Members Wright, Turnbull and Lane originally asked to be placed on the committee, but Wright shortly afterward withdrew. Brackett then nominated himself for the third position.
The committee member vote passed unanimously.
Kach said he would hope the core committee be selected by the School Board, but ultimately, the board said it would be Colter's committee.
Following the vote, about 50 community members and students spoke out, many saying they felt disrespected by the School Board and others saying those speaking out were embarrassing the community — some directing their comments toward the recent student walkout.
One students said he searched online the potential cost of hiring a consultant and said the average cost he found was about $15,000. The board has not provided official information about costs for a consultant.
When senior class President Ethan Hotchkiss spoke, he asked each student present to stand, which included School Board student representative Cody Jacobsen. He asked the School Board to reconsider its decision for the principal nomination and to allow a student to join the core committee.
Luci Gardner said she supported the School Board. The Durham resident said she hoped the School Board would take the time to find the proper candidate and reminded those present they had been voted into their position to represent the district.
"I didn't vote for them to rubber stamp a candidate," she said.
Following the more than an hour public comment session, some board members spoke up, saying they are looking forward to continuing speaking with the community on the district's future and encouraged continued letters from the community.
"I hope we focus on better and stronger communications," Wright said.
However, student representative Cody Jacobsen said he wished the School Board had not moved the meeting's vote about the future of the principal search before the public comment.
"I think you should have heard the community before you made your decision," he said.
http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110428/GJNEWS_01/704289701
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Next Brown Bag date change
Hello,
Today at the Brown Bag re: Grouping, it was noticed that the next one was scheduled for the Early Release Day of May 11, 2011. It was changed to Wed May 18th 12:30pm at the SAU building.
Next month's topic is Homework.
Today at the Brown Bag re: Grouping, it was noticed that the next one was scheduled for the Early Release Day of May 11, 2011. It was changed to Wed May 18th 12:30pm at the SAU building.
Next month's topic is Homework.
OR School Board to discuss principal, retirement plans
By RONI REINO
rreino@fosters.com
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
DURHAM — Oyster River School Board members are scheduled tonight to discuss plans to fill the pending high school principal vacancy after denying a nomination earlier this month.
For two months, 15 members of the high school principal search committee sifted through 44 applications and by early April, had narrowed the field down to two final candidates, Justin Campbell and Robert Thompson.
Superintendent Howard Colter had nominated Campbell, but a 4-3 vote against the nomination left the district without a plan on how to fill the vacancy that current principal Laura Rogers will leave at the end of the year. Members James Kach, Megan Turnbull, Ann Lane and Jocelyn O'Quinn were in the majority during the vote.
"I anticipate the major topic of the evening will be about the failed nomination of Justin Campbell," Colter said.
An e-mail dated April 20 from Board Chair Henry Brackett and Vice Chair Ann Wright said the board would ensure a principal would be in place for the 2011/2012 school year.
Also on the meeting's agenda is a proposal for a retirement incentive for staff who have been with the district for 10 or more years, which Colter said should save the district money.
The district would offer a one-time payment of $20,000 for 20 or more years of service in the Oyster River School District, or $15,000 for those who have served 10 to 19 years. A set amount would be placed in a fund and it would be a first-come, first-serve offering.
Colter said by hiring less expensive staff to replace retired staff, the district would still save money.
The School Board meets tonight at 7 p.m. in the auditorium, non-public is at 6:30 p.m..
rreino@fosters.com
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
DURHAM — Oyster River School Board members are scheduled tonight to discuss plans to fill the pending high school principal vacancy after denying a nomination earlier this month.
For two months, 15 members of the high school principal search committee sifted through 44 applications and by early April, had narrowed the field down to two final candidates, Justin Campbell and Robert Thompson.
Superintendent Howard Colter had nominated Campbell, but a 4-3 vote against the nomination left the district without a plan on how to fill the vacancy that current principal Laura Rogers will leave at the end of the year. Members James Kach, Megan Turnbull, Ann Lane and Jocelyn O'Quinn were in the majority during the vote.
"I anticipate the major topic of the evening will be about the failed nomination of Justin Campbell," Colter said.
An e-mail dated April 20 from Board Chair Henry Brackett and Vice Chair Ann Wright said the board would ensure a principal would be in place for the 2011/2012 school year.
Also on the meeting's agenda is a proposal for a retirement incentive for staff who have been with the district for 10 or more years, which Colter said should save the district money.
The district would offer a one-time payment of $20,000 for 20 or more years of service in the Oyster River School District, or $15,000 for those who have served 10 to 19 years. A set amount would be placed in a fund and it would be a first-come, first-serve offering.
Colter said by hiring less expensive staff to replace retired staff, the district would still save money.
The School Board meets tonight at 7 p.m. in the auditorium, non-public is at 6:30 p.m..
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Letter from ORHS Teachers
Dear Oyster River Cooperative School District Community Members:
As the faculty and staff of Oyster River High School, we find it imperative to inform you in detail as to the current status of our principal search and the School Board’s response. We feel strongly that a permanent replacement of Laura Rogers is essential to our school’s progress. An interim option would not allow us to maintain the momentum we have built.
Background
As of June of this year, Laura Rogers will be resigning from her position as the principal of the high school. As a result, our superintendent began the process of finding a replacement to fill the position in February by commissioning a diverse group of voices, which included the following stakeholders: students, parents, administrators, school board members, and faculty. This committee worked tirelessly to ensure that the district find a candidate with vision to guide our school in a successful direction.
Process
In March, the faculty and staff went to the School Board and read a signed letter explaining the problems with assigning an interim until a new superintendent is chosen in 2012. It was clearly outlined why an interim would not benefit student learning nor align with the educational philosophy of this school, district, and community. At this time, the board assured the townspeople present, along with the faculty and staff, that an interim was not being considered and to move on with the hiring process. After two interviews, site visits, daylong visits with the candidates at ORHS, and a community tea, the two finalists were sent before the Board for final interviews. Up to this point, no concerns were raised about the quality of the candidates or with the process itself.
Upon entering private session, Superintendent Howard Colter nominated Justin Campbell as his candidate choice, and the board voted 4-3 to not support his nomination. The board refused to provide any reasoning for this vote. At this point, we do not have a principal for next year. Subsequently, the board delivered a statement during the April 13th School Board meeting explaining that their reasoning was budgetary and because the district was nominating a new superintendent in 2012.
Future Action
We as a faculty and staff ask you to attend the school board meeting on the night of April 27th at 7 pm to show your support for our students. At this meeting, we will be making a statement revisiting our concerns surrounding the potential impacts of this decision to student learning. We invite you to voice your opinions on the situation and our district’s course of action. Through letters to the board and attendance at school board meetings, we ask you to join us in speaking out against the board’s inability to keep its word.
As we move forward with this process, the faculty and staff will continue to stay focused on what is most important: our students. We hope to see you on the 27th as we seek a solution to the question of leadership at the high school.
Sincerely,
The Faculty and Staff of Oyster River High School
Letter From Laura DiMeglio
[UPDATE: Ms. DiMeglio requested her letter be removed - you can still read it at Fosters]
Monday, April 25, 2011
Available to Those Interested
There is an online petition available for those Oyster River community members interested in voicing their concern about the rejection of the nominated high school principal. It can be found at http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/orcsdschoolbrd/
Letter to the Editor - OR Scam
OR scam
To the editor: Is anyone aware that in the 10 years before last year the Oyster River School System cost increased 1,000% over the state average? It went from $374 to $3,472 over the state average in cost per student per year. And the current budget of $37,400,000 puts Oyster River's true cost per student per year at $18,243 which continues to be way over the state average.
We have been told this cost insures an excellent school system for the Oyster River taxpayers. This is not the case. Please read on.
Two years ago a former chairman of the Oyster River School Board told me that the Oyster River test scores were "soaring." This year and last year Oyster River did not meet the State Adequate Yearly Progress levels for reading and math. Some 46% or 75 school districts out of the 163 districts in New Hampshire did meet the State AYP level. That means that Oyster River did less than those 75 districts on the AYP reports. You call that "soaring"?
Let's go farther with this comparison. The US News and World Report does a feature each year naming the 100 best high schools in America. They evaluate over 21,000 public high schools and choose the 100 best performing ones. None of the 100 are in New Hampshire.
The number 2 ranked high school in America has a 1 teacher to 20.9 students ratio and rates 100 on the College Readiness Index. The number 3 ranked high school in America has 1 teacher to 23.7 students ratio and rates 100 on the College Readiness Index. The number 4 ranked high school in America has 1 teacher to 28 students ratio and rates 100 on the College Readiness Index. The average cost per student per year of these three high schools is $10,553 per student per year.
Oyster River High School is not on the 100 best list, has 1 teacher to 11.6 students ratio, rates 22.9 on the College Readiness Index, and costs $18,243 per student per year.
One teacher to 11.6 students is fiscally unsustainable even if Oyster River High School was superior, which it is not. It is also irresponsible of the school administration and the School Board over those years.
The Oyster River School System has been scamming the taxpayers of Durham, Madbury, and Lee for years. It has got to stop.
There will be an advertised meeting of the Oyster River School District taxpayers soon. Please Stand By.
Roger Speidel
Durham
To the editor: Is anyone aware that in the 10 years before last year the Oyster River School System cost increased 1,000% over the state average? It went from $374 to $3,472 over the state average in cost per student per year. And the current budget of $37,400,000 puts Oyster River's true cost per student per year at $18,243 which continues to be way over the state average.
We have been told this cost insures an excellent school system for the Oyster River taxpayers. This is not the case. Please read on.
Two years ago a former chairman of the Oyster River School Board told me that the Oyster River test scores were "soaring." This year and last year Oyster River did not meet the State Adequate Yearly Progress levels for reading and math. Some 46% or 75 school districts out of the 163 districts in New Hampshire did meet the State AYP level. That means that Oyster River did less than those 75 districts on the AYP reports. You call that "soaring"?
Let's go farther with this comparison. The US News and World Report does a feature each year naming the 100 best high schools in America. They evaluate over 21,000 public high schools and choose the 100 best performing ones. None of the 100 are in New Hampshire.
The number 2 ranked high school in America has a 1 teacher to 20.9 students ratio and rates 100 on the College Readiness Index. The number 3 ranked high school in America has 1 teacher to 23.7 students ratio and rates 100 on the College Readiness Index. The number 4 ranked high school in America has 1 teacher to 28 students ratio and rates 100 on the College Readiness Index. The average cost per student per year of these three high schools is $10,553 per student per year.
Oyster River High School is not on the 100 best list, has 1 teacher to 11.6 students ratio, rates 22.9 on the College Readiness Index, and costs $18,243 per student per year.
One teacher to 11.6 students is fiscally unsustainable even if Oyster River High School was superior, which it is not. It is also irresponsible of the school administration and the School Board over those years.
The Oyster River School System has been scamming the taxpayers of Durham, Madbury, and Lee for years. It has got to stop.
There will be an advertised meeting of the Oyster River School District taxpayers soon. Please Stand By.
Roger Speidel
Durham
Letter to the Editor - Call for ORCSD Changes
ORCSD changes
To the editor: In the wake of the media attention granted to Wednesday's protest at the Oyster River School Board meeting and yesterday's (April 14) student walkout, both transparently led by former or ousted members of the board, we commend the board for their decision to deny Justin Campbell a multiyear contract as high school principal and offer our support to expedite the administrative transition at the ORCSD.
The board has correctly chosen to overturn the recommendations of Superintendent Colter and the Search Committee (which by one member's own account had no criteria to guide them through the search process). Budget revenue uncertainty combined with a mandate from the tax-paying community to rein in spending, a lame duck superintendent, and the demand from Mr. Campbell for a multiyear contract each warrant serious consideration to seek alternatives. Members Kach, Lane, O'Quinn and Turnbull have done the school district and townspeople a service through their action.
With the appointment of a new principal temporarily suspended, the board should now develop a comprehensive strategy for the transition of the school department administration, beginning with the search and selection of a new superintendent. Mr. Colter's choice to not serve past June of next year is a decision no one denies him and one he deserves. But, in this case, that decision unnecessarily complicates, or worse, disrupts, the needed long term planning, governance and management of the district.
The relationship between the superintendent and the board must be synchronous with regard to goals and objectives of the district. That is clearly not the case at ORCSD. Therefore, it is time for the board to develop their long term plan, define the methods of measuring its achievement, and hire the superintendent that can best execute the plan. Prioritizing a negotiated buyout of Mr. Colter's contract and appointing his replacement as soon as possible is a critical step in this process.
The legacy of the old school board and Superintendent Colter is extravagant spending for a product that cannot justify the expense. The newly composed board must confront this legacy directly and swiftly.
Elmer and Tiffany Liebsch
Durham
To the editor: In the wake of the media attention granted to Wednesday's protest at the Oyster River School Board meeting and yesterday's (April 14) student walkout, both transparently led by former or ousted members of the board, we commend the board for their decision to deny Justin Campbell a multiyear contract as high school principal and offer our support to expedite the administrative transition at the ORCSD.
The board has correctly chosen to overturn the recommendations of Superintendent Colter and the Search Committee (which by one member's own account had no criteria to guide them through the search process). Budget revenue uncertainty combined with a mandate from the tax-paying community to rein in spending, a lame duck superintendent, and the demand from Mr. Campbell for a multiyear contract each warrant serious consideration to seek alternatives. Members Kach, Lane, O'Quinn and Turnbull have done the school district and townspeople a service through their action.
With the appointment of a new principal temporarily suspended, the board should now develop a comprehensive strategy for the transition of the school department administration, beginning with the search and selection of a new superintendent. Mr. Colter's choice to not serve past June of next year is a decision no one denies him and one he deserves. But, in this case, that decision unnecessarily complicates, or worse, disrupts, the needed long term planning, governance and management of the district.
The relationship between the superintendent and the board must be synchronous with regard to goals and objectives of the district. That is clearly not the case at ORCSD. Therefore, it is time for the board to develop their long term plan, define the methods of measuring its achievement, and hire the superintendent that can best execute the plan. Prioritizing a negotiated buyout of Mr. Colter's contract and appointing his replacement as soon as possible is a critical step in this process.
The legacy of the old school board and Superintendent Colter is extravagant spending for a product that cannot justify the expense. The newly composed board must confront this legacy directly and swiftly.
Elmer and Tiffany Liebsch
Durham
Letter to the Editor - Supports Board
Supports board
To the editor: I am writing to voice my support for the Oyster River Cooperative School District School Board. I attended the meeting held on April 13. I watched the board respectfully listen to an impassioned segment of their constituency articulating displeasure with the recent decision not to offer a contract to a potential high school principal. One speaker pointedly stated that the board "failed the students."
By law our youth are entitled to an adequate education. That education is provided by the taxpayers. Notice I did not say voters. The voters have the luxury of spending other people's money while deciding many issues including the quality of education afforded by our local schools. The taxpayers make those decisions reality. The students, teachers and administrators are the beneficiaries, good or bad, of that reality.
Our School Board has the unenviable task of balancing the requirements of the state with the wishes of the students, the teachers, the administrators, the voters and the taxpayers. They have to weigh an esoteric, "quality education" against the very real possibility of taxing some of our neighbors out of our community. They have each volunteered their time and efforts and stepped forward into the spotlight, braving public opinion and ridicule, to do our bidding. I believe that each has accepted their charge for truly altruistic reasons. I believe each board member is committed to maintaining the high quality of education we provide in our district. I have faith in each member to vote their conscience and I respect and appreciate them all for doing so.
Did the School Board fail anyone by not approving the superintendent's recommendation? Obviously some folks were disappointed they didn't get what they wanted, but I don't have all the information, so I honestly don't know. I do know I was impressed and heartened to witness the exemplary way the School Board as a whole moved forward as a unified body, following the closest of votes on a contentious issue, respecting the process, the community they serve and each other. We can all learn from their example.
Steve Nadeau
Durham
To the editor: I am writing to voice my support for the Oyster River Cooperative School District School Board. I attended the meeting held on April 13. I watched the board respectfully listen to an impassioned segment of their constituency articulating displeasure with the recent decision not to offer a contract to a potential high school principal. One speaker pointedly stated that the board "failed the students."
By law our youth are entitled to an adequate education. That education is provided by the taxpayers. Notice I did not say voters. The voters have the luxury of spending other people's money while deciding many issues including the quality of education afforded by our local schools. The taxpayers make those decisions reality. The students, teachers and administrators are the beneficiaries, good or bad, of that reality.
Our School Board has the unenviable task of balancing the requirements of the state with the wishes of the students, the teachers, the administrators, the voters and the taxpayers. They have to weigh an esoteric, "quality education" against the very real possibility of taxing some of our neighbors out of our community. They have each volunteered their time and efforts and stepped forward into the spotlight, braving public opinion and ridicule, to do our bidding. I believe that each has accepted their charge for truly altruistic reasons. I believe each board member is committed to maintaining the high quality of education we provide in our district. I have faith in each member to vote their conscience and I respect and appreciate them all for doing so.
Did the School Board fail anyone by not approving the superintendent's recommendation? Obviously some folks were disappointed they didn't get what they wanted, but I don't have all the information, so I honestly don't know. I do know I was impressed and heartened to witness the exemplary way the School Board as a whole moved forward as a unified body, following the closest of votes on a contentious issue, respecting the process, the community they serve and each other. We can all learn from their example.
Steve Nadeau
Durham
Cost to educate soars over a decade: Why are school districts paying so much more?
By Conor Makem
Monday, April 25, 2011
ROCHESTER — Dover recently stole the crown of highest population in the Seacoast from Rochester. However, though Rochester's population has increased by 1,291 since the last census a decade ago, its student population has actually decreased by 166. Yet, over the same time period, Rochester's school budget has grown from $32,434,168 to $54,050,200, an increase of 66.6 percent.
A breakdown of the cost per pupil shows just how much more it is costing to educate the area's youth. Rochester's cost per pupil in 2000-01, according to NH Department of Education figures, was $6,097, rising to $11,605 last year, an increase of 90 percent. Dover was paying $6,356 in 2000-01, a number which rose to $10,085 in 2009-10, an increase of 59 percent. Farmington — $5,373 up to $10,371, a 93 percent increase; Milton — $5,531 up to $12,887, a 133 percent jump; and Somersworth — $6,382 up to $11763, an 84 percent gain.
Superintendent Mike Hopkins notes that the increases are primarily due to labor and benefit cost increases. According to figures supplied by Hopkins, the average teacher salary in 2000-01 was $37,068, compared with a current salary of $48,176, a 30 percent increase. In addition, insurance has jumped from $2,242,083 to $ 7,233,090 during the same time frame, by 233 percent.
"If you look at the United States, several factors stand out to me. Jobs are going overseas to less expensive labor. That isn't an option for the schools," Hopkins says. "We are also competing with local school districts for talented teachers. The Rochester School Board needed to increase employees' salaries to compete for and retain high quality staff members."
Salaries in Rochester are competitive with surrounding communities that also have high schools. The NH Department of Education cites current average salaries as: Dover, $49,104; Farmington, $44,461; Milton, $46,434; and lagging a bit behind is Somersworth, $40,460.
School Board member Doris Gates is outspoken in her criticism of school funding increases over the years. Gates, who attends meetings of the Rochester 9-12 Group, says she plans on looking into what is in the union contracts above and beyond pay. The schools, teachers and administrations won't budge, she says, explaining that private sector employees have had to swallow increased health insurance costs.
"People haven't gotten raises in years," Gates says. "And the schools are complaining because they haven't had a raise since June."
Compounding the necessity for increased school spending, according to Hopkins, are items that are not easily controllable at a local level like No Child Left Behind requirements, Adequate Yearly Progress requirements, Title I requirements, and McKinney-Vento (homeless requirements). While smaller, he notes, they all add up to an increase in the budget.
And with 11 substantial school buildings, Rochester's fuel costs have seen big increases in the past decade. Hopkins notes that natural gas has jumped from $132,035 to a budgeted amount this year of $288,491; electricity, from $385,184 to $525,544 and heating fuel, from $147,947 to $218,313. Though they aren't a huge portion of the increased costs, all told, those numbers add up to a 55 percent increase over 10 years ago.
Hopkins points out the energy saving initiatives that the Rochester School District has taken, including plans to replace all of the aging boilers in the schools with new, efficient models and the implementation of advanced, centralized energy regulating systems. Much of this work has already been completed.
Dr. Judith Fillion, Division Director, Division of Program Support for the NH Department of Education, adds that retirement packages also add to the increases in school budgets. In addition, she notes that there is an "aging teaching force that in some cases makes it more expensive." A case of you get what you pay for.
The bottom line is how the students are benefiting from the increased costs. Hopkins cites improvements in students' performance throughout the district.
"Our focus on improved reading and math scores has made a great deal of difference. We have increased our top quartile of students by 10 percent," he says. "So, we used to have approximately 25 percent of our students score above the 75th percentile. Now we have 35 percent of our students score above the 75th percentile. That is a shift in the entire group of students toward improved performance."
Students nowadays are "getting unique services. Meeting the individual needs of the kids has become a real focus," Dr. Fillion says. "That's not just special ed, it's all students. And we've had really good dropout prevention programs."
How does Rochester's school budget compare with the rest of the country? The National Education Association cites national school expenditures in 2000 at $320 billion and 2010 expenditures as $510 billion, or a 60 percent increase. Rochester sits at 67 percent.
Gates also believes that Rochester's regular school budget does not paint an accurate picture of how much taxpayer money is spent in the school system. Capital Improvement Projects, which include upkeep for school buildings, is not included in the school budget, she says.
Gates says she is frustrated that more conversations aren't taking place on how to save money.
"I think we've failed in not working together to save a dollar," Gates says. "There's always areas to save."
She believes school staffers need to change their mindset to consider how to save money whenever it is spent, from paper supplies to shipping charges.
"Let's make sure we're buying these things the best way we can," she says.
Monday, April 25, 2011
ROCHESTER — Dover recently stole the crown of highest population in the Seacoast from Rochester. However, though Rochester's population has increased by 1,291 since the last census a decade ago, its student population has actually decreased by 166. Yet, over the same time period, Rochester's school budget has grown from $32,434,168 to $54,050,200, an increase of 66.6 percent.
A breakdown of the cost per pupil shows just how much more it is costing to educate the area's youth. Rochester's cost per pupil in 2000-01, according to NH Department of Education figures, was $6,097, rising to $11,605 last year, an increase of 90 percent. Dover was paying $6,356 in 2000-01, a number which rose to $10,085 in 2009-10, an increase of 59 percent. Farmington — $5,373 up to $10,371, a 93 percent increase; Milton — $5,531 up to $12,887, a 133 percent jump; and Somersworth — $6,382 up to $11763, an 84 percent gain.
Superintendent Mike Hopkins notes that the increases are primarily due to labor and benefit cost increases. According to figures supplied by Hopkins, the average teacher salary in 2000-01 was $37,068, compared with a current salary of $48,176, a 30 percent increase. In addition, insurance has jumped from $2,242,083 to $ 7,233,090 during the same time frame, by 233 percent.
"If you look at the United States, several factors stand out to me. Jobs are going overseas to less expensive labor. That isn't an option for the schools," Hopkins says. "We are also competing with local school districts for talented teachers. The Rochester School Board needed to increase employees' salaries to compete for and retain high quality staff members."
Salaries in Rochester are competitive with surrounding communities that also have high schools. The NH Department of Education cites current average salaries as: Dover, $49,104; Farmington, $44,461; Milton, $46,434; and lagging a bit behind is Somersworth, $40,460.
School Board member Doris Gates is outspoken in her criticism of school funding increases over the years. Gates, who attends meetings of the Rochester 9-12 Group, says she plans on looking into what is in the union contracts above and beyond pay. The schools, teachers and administrations won't budge, she says, explaining that private sector employees have had to swallow increased health insurance costs.
"People haven't gotten raises in years," Gates says. "And the schools are complaining because they haven't had a raise since June."
Compounding the necessity for increased school spending, according to Hopkins, are items that are not easily controllable at a local level like No Child Left Behind requirements, Adequate Yearly Progress requirements, Title I requirements, and McKinney-Vento (homeless requirements). While smaller, he notes, they all add up to an increase in the budget.
And with 11 substantial school buildings, Rochester's fuel costs have seen big increases in the past decade. Hopkins notes that natural gas has jumped from $132,035 to a budgeted amount this year of $288,491; electricity, from $385,184 to $525,544 and heating fuel, from $147,947 to $218,313. Though they aren't a huge portion of the increased costs, all told, those numbers add up to a 55 percent increase over 10 years ago.
Hopkins points out the energy saving initiatives that the Rochester School District has taken, including plans to replace all of the aging boilers in the schools with new, efficient models and the implementation of advanced, centralized energy regulating systems. Much of this work has already been completed.
Dr. Judith Fillion, Division Director, Division of Program Support for the NH Department of Education, adds that retirement packages also add to the increases in school budgets. In addition, she notes that there is an "aging teaching force that in some cases makes it more expensive." A case of you get what you pay for.
The bottom line is how the students are benefiting from the increased costs. Hopkins cites improvements in students' performance throughout the district.
"Our focus on improved reading and math scores has made a great deal of difference. We have increased our top quartile of students by 10 percent," he says. "So, we used to have approximately 25 percent of our students score above the 75th percentile. Now we have 35 percent of our students score above the 75th percentile. That is a shift in the entire group of students toward improved performance."
Students nowadays are "getting unique services. Meeting the individual needs of the kids has become a real focus," Dr. Fillion says. "That's not just special ed, it's all students. And we've had really good dropout prevention programs."
How does Rochester's school budget compare with the rest of the country? The National Education Association cites national school expenditures in 2000 at $320 billion and 2010 expenditures as $510 billion, or a 60 percent increase. Rochester sits at 67 percent.
Gates also believes that Rochester's regular school budget does not paint an accurate picture of how much taxpayer money is spent in the school system. Capital Improvement Projects, which include upkeep for school buildings, is not included in the school budget, she says.
Gates says she is frustrated that more conversations aren't taking place on how to save money.
"I think we've failed in not working together to save a dollar," Gates says. "There's always areas to save."
She believes school staffers need to change their mindset to consider how to save money whenever it is spent, from paper supplies to shipping charges.
"Let's make sure we're buying these things the best way we can," she says.
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Another Letter to School Board
Letter from Benjamin Hilyard to the ORCSD School Board:
Dear Oyster River Cooperative School District Neighbors
Let's just call it what it is.....a community in crisis. Not just a crisis of the hear-and-now or through the individual actions of any particular board, board member, community member or administration, rather a slow build up of tensions and animosity. Like the difference between depression and dysthymia, the later is a constant and nagging negativity that is often more dangerous because it is left unaddressed. With no disrespect intended to Mr. Colter, I would respectfully submit, our district has been in a crisis of dysthymia since the death of our previous superintendent and flamed by an economy in decline. Whatever the reason, the constant and nagging negativity or our district's culture is a crisis and this latest event is a symptom. I would argue that this crisis will trickle down to affect our children in many ways if we do not change the direction of the coming debate. It is this crossroads that has prompted me to act.
There is a predictable and well worn course that could be prevented.
Unfortunately, having been a member of a school board and close to the complex world of a district administration, I have seen this predictable decline in several different communities. Call me a pessimist but if we do not act with a single focus on the best interest of our children and their learning, the following will soon be upon us:
1) The "camps" will move on to the next issue with a different cause, leading to continued and intractable tension.
2) Our teachers will grow increasingly apprehensive of the public and their administration thus feeling unsupported and unwanted constraint in their professional ingenuity and job satisfaction.
3) The best applicants will pass on the opportunity to submit applications for employment at ORCSD.
4) Our district will decline from its position of prominence leading to a secondary crisis of recovery.
5) The search for a new superintendent will divide our community to greater depths.
The mutually respectful relationship between a superintendent and the school board is crucial for a strong district. When board oversight is seen as positive and there is an open flow of ideas, superintendents have the room to dream big and provide the complex structure necessary to educate students for the future. There is an absolute need for the respect of diligent financial oversight yet a corresponding respect of an administrator's professionalism and void of micromanagement.
Yes, I can be accused of riding the fence, but I will not second guess anyone without all the information. Maybe more people need to join me on this fence of civility and productive dialog. Please understand, I have seen principles cry because of their boards. I have discussed frustrated early retirement with superintendents. Worst of all I have seen countless children failed by their district. I have even received angry calls because I voted to remove soda from a cafeteria. We are actually looking at an opportunity. The opportunity is to follow our children's example to peacefully allow our concerns to be heard as a united community. The world is watching and our kid's future is at stake.
My 10 year old daughter just said, "You start with respect then you come from a respectful approach and then your end product is an important act." Out of the mouth of babes.
Ben (an un-camped psychotherapist/educational consultant - highly concerned parent of two ORCSD students)
Dear Oyster River Cooperative School District Neighbors
Let's just call it what it is.....a community in crisis. Not just a crisis of the hear-and-now or through the individual actions of any particular board, board member, community member or administration, rather a slow build up of tensions and animosity. Like the difference between depression and dysthymia, the later is a constant and nagging negativity that is often more dangerous because it is left unaddressed. With no disrespect intended to Mr. Colter, I would respectfully submit, our district has been in a crisis of dysthymia since the death of our previous superintendent and flamed by an economy in decline. Whatever the reason, the constant and nagging negativity or our district's culture is a crisis and this latest event is a symptom. I would argue that this crisis will trickle down to affect our children in many ways if we do not change the direction of the coming debate. It is this crossroads that has prompted me to act.
There is a predictable and well worn course that could be prevented.
Unfortunately, having been a member of a school board and close to the complex world of a district administration, I have seen this predictable decline in several different communities. Call me a pessimist but if we do not act with a single focus on the best interest of our children and their learning, the following will soon be upon us:
1) The "camps" will move on to the next issue with a different cause, leading to continued and intractable tension.
2) Our teachers will grow increasingly apprehensive of the public and their administration thus feeling unsupported and unwanted constraint in their professional ingenuity and job satisfaction.
3) The best applicants will pass on the opportunity to submit applications for employment at ORCSD.
4) Our district will decline from its position of prominence leading to a secondary crisis of recovery.
5) The search for a new superintendent will divide our community to greater depths.
The mutually respectful relationship between a superintendent and the school board is crucial for a strong district. When board oversight is seen as positive and there is an open flow of ideas, superintendents have the room to dream big and provide the complex structure necessary to educate students for the future. There is an absolute need for the respect of diligent financial oversight yet a corresponding respect of an administrator's professionalism and void of micromanagement.
Yes, I can be accused of riding the fence, but I will not second guess anyone without all the information. Maybe more people need to join me on this fence of civility and productive dialog. Please understand, I have seen principles cry because of their boards. I have discussed frustrated early retirement with superintendents. Worst of all I have seen countless children failed by their district. I have even received angry calls because I voted to remove soda from a cafeteria. We are actually looking at an opportunity. The opportunity is to follow our children's example to peacefully allow our concerns to be heard as a united community. The world is watching and our kid's future is at stake.
My 10 year old daughter just said, "You start with respect then you come from a respectful approach and then your end product is an important act." Out of the mouth of babes.
Ben (an un-camped psychotherapist/educational consultant - highly concerned parent of two ORCSD students)
Something for everyone to support!
TAKE A SHORT "QUIZ" AND HELP ORHS ATHLETICS WIN A $5000 LIBERTY MUTUAL "RESPONSIBLE SPORTS" GRANT
Liberty Mutual has created a “Responsible Sports” program, giving out $65,000 nationally each year to youth sport organizations. Youth sports organizations compete to win grant money by getting the largest number of parents, coaches, and friends to earn “certifications” in the Liberty Mutual Responsible Sports course material. This material imparts valuable mentoring techniques to provide a safe, positive, character-building sports experience for kids.
Should ORHS Athletics win a grant, half of the money will be put toward covering ORHS student registration fees for the annual Bobcat Bolt 5K/10K road race (hosted by the Oyster River Alumni Association, proceeds benefit the Oyster River Teen Initiative). The other half of the grant will be spent on a variety of ORHS Athletic Department needs.
STEP 1: TAKE THE QUIZ BY MAY 31!
To earn your certification, take a short "responsible sports" online quiz by May 31, 2011. You can take either the Parent or Coach quiz depending on your role/interests. You don’t have to be a parent or coach to participate, you just have to be interested!
1. Click on the link above to enter the responsible sports website.
2. Under the section titled Get Started click "Parents" or "Coaches" (it doesn't matter which).
3. On the Responsible Sport Parenting (or Coach) page, you will see several options. You can subscribe to the eNewsletter, read the coursework and take the quiz.
4. For our purposes, click "Take the Quiz".
5. Proceed through the quiz by selecting the correct answers.
Note: The quizzes come with very informative online course material in responsible sport coaching/parenting that you should read prior to taking the quiz. However the quiz is pretty easy to pass even without reading the material since it corrects you until you select the right answer! No test anxiety here!
STEP 2: CREDIT YOUR CERTIFICATION POINT TO ORHS ATHLETICS!
Once you completed the quiz, you will then be automatically prompted to register your name and email address. You will need to submit this information in order to credit your certification point to ORHS Athletics. Liberty Mutual does not keep your information, share it, or use it for any advertising purposes. **Note: When it asks you to put in a password, you should create a brand new password which will enable you to log back into the responsible sports website and check the status of the grant. It is not asking for the password that you use for your personal email account!
After you’ve registered you will be asked to credit the “point” you earned for taking the quiz to your youth organization of choice. Please type in: Organization Name: Oyster River High School Athletics, City: Durham, State: NH. Then click “Credit” next to “ORHS Athletics, Bobcats, Durham NH" once it gives you some choices.
Important! Now **check your email account** to find the “verification” email sent to you from the Liberty Mutual “Responsible Sports”. Open the email and click on the “Verify Me Now!” link. Congratulations you are done!!
STEP 3: SPREAD THE WORD TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW!
If you like, continue on to your “fan” page to see how many certifications ORHS Athletics currently has, and to “spread the word” by sending out emails to fellow coaches, parents, and friends encouraging them to take the quiz too!
You can also view the Leader Board to check where ORHS Athletics currently stands vis-Ã -vis other youth organizations in the competition (note we are in the “Schools” category and the leader board only lists the top 15):
THE TOP 6 SCHOOLS WITH THE MOST CERTIFICATION POINTS BY MAY 31, 2011 WIN A GRANT! GO BOBCATS!
Liberty Mutual has created a “Responsible Sports” program, giving out $65,000 nationally each year to youth sport organizations. Youth sports organizations compete to win grant money by getting the largest number of parents, coaches, and friends to earn “certifications” in the Liberty Mutual Responsible Sports course material. This material imparts valuable mentoring techniques to provide a safe, positive, character-building sports experience for kids.
Should ORHS Athletics win a grant, half of the money will be put toward covering ORHS student registration fees for the annual Bobcat Bolt 5K/10K road race (hosted by the Oyster River Alumni Association, proceeds benefit the Oyster River Teen Initiative). The other half of the grant will be spent on a variety of ORHS Athletic Department needs.
STEP 1: TAKE THE QUIZ BY MAY 31!
To earn your certification, take a short "responsible sports" online quiz by May 31, 2011. You can take either the Parent or Coach quiz depending on your role/interests. You don’t have to be a parent or coach to participate, you just have to be interested!
1. Click on the link above to enter the responsible sports website.
2. Under the section titled Get Started click "Parents" or "Coaches" (it doesn't matter which).
3. On the Responsible Sport Parenting (or Coach) page, you will see several options. You can subscribe to the eNewsletter, read the coursework and take the quiz.
4. For our purposes, click "Take the Quiz".
5. Proceed through the quiz by selecting the correct answers.
Note: The quizzes come with very informative online course material in responsible sport coaching/parenting that you should read prior to taking the quiz. However the quiz is pretty easy to pass even without reading the material since it corrects you until you select the right answer! No test anxiety here!
STEP 2: CREDIT YOUR CERTIFICATION POINT TO ORHS ATHLETICS!
Once you completed the quiz, you will then be automatically prompted to register your name and email address. You will need to submit this information in order to credit your certification point to ORHS Athletics. Liberty Mutual does not keep your information, share it, or use it for any advertising purposes. **Note: When it asks you to put in a password, you should create a brand new password which will enable you to log back into the responsible sports website and check the status of the grant. It is not asking for the password that you use for your personal email account!
After you’ve registered you will be asked to credit the “point” you earned for taking the quiz to your youth organization of choice. Please type in: Organization Name: Oyster River High School Athletics, City: Durham, State: NH. Then click “Credit” next to “ORHS Athletics, Bobcats, Durham NH" once it gives you some choices.
Important! Now **check your email account** to find the “verification” email sent to you from the Liberty Mutual “Responsible Sports”. Open the email and click on the “Verify Me Now!” link. Congratulations you are done!!
STEP 3: SPREAD THE WORD TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW!
If you like, continue on to your “fan” page to see how many certifications ORHS Athletics currently has, and to “spread the word” by sending out emails to fellow coaches, parents, and friends encouraging them to take the quiz too!
You can also view the Leader Board to check where ORHS Athletics currently stands vis-Ã -vis other youth organizations in the competition (note we are in the “Schools” category and the leader board only lists the top 15):
THE TOP 6 SCHOOLS WITH THE MOST CERTIFICATION POINTS BY MAY 31, 2011 WIN A GRANT! GO BOBCATS!
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Letter from JoAnn Portalupi - former school board member
If not ignorance, then what?
To the editor: The Oyster River community is being told by the School Board that a potential shortfall in state revenue is largely responsible for their decision to derail the search for a high school principal. Really? Then why did the board, when presented at the April 06 meeting with a list of personnel reductions to address any shortfall, ask the superintendent to come back to a future meeting with a new list of reductions with no cuts to personnel?
To be deliberating on budget reductions in April, one short month after the budget has been vetted and approved by voters is strange enough. State lawmakers have put us in that position. But debate about how to reduce spending belongs at the Board table.
Any decision to downsize the high school administration should take place in open deliberation — within a full budget discussion when priorities can be established and cuts made with sensitivity to educational goals — not behind closed doors.
I don't believe the board intends the high school to go without a principal. A more honest response would have been to simply say they didn't want this candidate. But that answer is problematic.
Four individual Board members rejected the nomination, two of whom have no direct experience with the high school, two of which had served on the board for less than one month at the time of the vote. How is it these individuals believe they know better than a full Search Committee of diverse stakeholders charged with the task of finding the best matched candidate? Better than the superintendent who works day in and day out with students, faculty and the district's leadership team? Better than the high school faculty, the students, and many parents who attended the Community event to meet the candidates?
All of these groups gave strong endorsements to the finalists. Yet four small votes pushed back this tide. If not ignorance, then what?
JoAnn Portalupi
Lee
To the editor: The Oyster River community is being told by the School Board that a potential shortfall in state revenue is largely responsible for their decision to derail the search for a high school principal. Really? Then why did the board, when presented at the April 06 meeting with a list of personnel reductions to address any shortfall, ask the superintendent to come back to a future meeting with a new list of reductions with no cuts to personnel?
To be deliberating on budget reductions in April, one short month after the budget has been vetted and approved by voters is strange enough. State lawmakers have put us in that position. But debate about how to reduce spending belongs at the Board table.
Any decision to downsize the high school administration should take place in open deliberation — within a full budget discussion when priorities can be established and cuts made with sensitivity to educational goals — not behind closed doors.
I don't believe the board intends the high school to go without a principal. A more honest response would have been to simply say they didn't want this candidate. But that answer is problematic.
Four individual Board members rejected the nomination, two of whom have no direct experience with the high school, two of which had served on the board for less than one month at the time of the vote. How is it these individuals believe they know better than a full Search Committee of diverse stakeholders charged with the task of finding the best matched candidate? Better than the superintendent who works day in and day out with students, faculty and the district's leadership team? Better than the high school faculty, the students, and many parents who attended the Community event to meet the candidates?
All of these groups gave strong endorsements to the finalists. Yet four small votes pushed back this tide. If not ignorance, then what?
JoAnn Portalupi
Lee
A Letter from an OR Alum and Parent of OR Students
This was a letter I received today asking it to be posted.
----------------
----------------
As an Oyster River alum and parent of current OR 9th & 2nd graders (and a preschooler for a time) I believe this principal-board debacle is indicative of problems that go beyond the high school principal search process. In the two years I've been back in the district I continue to be distressed by the policy islands that exist independent of each other both between schools and within them.
For example, Mast Way does many things very differently from Moharimet - including important aspects of special education and nutrition programs. The Mast Way teaching staff and administration have demonstrated expertise and enthusiasm for their work, but in my opinion there is a confidence vacuum at the level of staff decision making required to truly ensure every student has the best opportunity to succeed. That vacuum is a result of too much uncertainty over too long a period – inconsistent or absent critical leadership and planning. For example - there are limited resources for advanced learners. Differentiated education is a lovely concept, but teachers don’t have access to the tools to expand the practice to strong students…they end up cobbling together their best combinations of technology and advanced material, but there is no consistent process across grades to ensure that strong students aren’t recreating the wheel year after year – and no audible conversation about how to fix that. These strong students can reset the bar – trust them to be the vanguard for creative learning that pulls everyone along…start talking about how to celebrate and accommodate them at a district level and watch how their success expands and trickles down, inspiring more reaching among their peers. Pushing success up from the bottom is working against gravity – and rarely reaches the top. Any second grader knows that working with gravity is more efficient!
I understand that for quite some time there were subject matter teachers in the district that had never met each other….I’m not an education expert, but I would expect that middle school math, language, science or social studies teachers know more about the high school curriculum than I do from attending open houses and reviewing the handbook; it does not appear that was consistently the case and more alarmingly, ever a goal. Development of strong curriculums and best practices of instruction should be a shared process across the district and I commend the pockets of innovation in special education and world language where there are early efforts to do just that. This approach should be a district wide initiative right now – not a “who’s willing” or “where’s the crisis” reactive response.
I recently attempted to participate on the district Wellness Committee. As a public health RN with adolescent health, grant writing, and program planning and evaluation experience I felt my skills could be valuable to district initiatives. I attended one meeting where I strongly encouraged the committee to refocus its work on re-evaluation of the boilerplate Wellness Policy. That policy was written 5 years ago to meet the minimum requirements to receive school lunch program funding and has very limited application in its present form. The current committee charge appeared to be micro-problem solving for the high school nutrition program at the same time it was organizing a search for a new food service director. Solving problems inherent to an old administration while preparing to hire a new one is an inefficient use of time and resources. The new Food Service Director is the best person to address many of the problems that were on the table – from pizza vendor selection to student lunch line flow and menu reliability. For 80K+ a year, this position should be managing these challenges. The Wellness Committee should be focusing on policy recommendations – identifying goals for the district with regard to health and wellness. These goals should go well beyond concerns about irregularly sliced pizza and out into the physical, psychological, and emotional health of students, faculty and staff. After this meeting I forwarded a few great resources to Mr. Colter as examples of best practice wellness policies and received no response. I forwarded resources that I thought would be useful to the search committee to guide selection criteria and interviewing to Sue Caswell, district business manager, as she was identified as heading the search for a Food Service Director. I received no response. This failure to acknowledge much less facilitate exchange in the interest of best practice should be of concern. If the resources are already being used, I’ve seen no evidence of that. If they aren’t, they should be…regardless of who they come from.
A few days after the first wellness meeting I attended I was advised by the Superintendent that the committee had no need of any further assistance from me, as it was “his committee” and he felt it had adequate representation from parents, community members and health professionals. I attended the next meeting as a silent observer – he’s correct – the nurses from across the district are passionate and invested advocates for our students. Mr. Colter did pass along a membership list when I asked, with the caveat that not everyone makes every meeting. No members introduced themselves as parents or community members who weren’t also staff or school board members. Many on the list did not attend either of the two monthly meetings I did. I simply did not see the depth and breadth of stakeholders at the table that are required to support sustainable policy evaluation. While I’ve only been to the last two meetings, in my corporate/business world experience if there are members of an important advisory group that are consistently absent then the group should be re-evaluated for both form and function. This example of a leadership vacuum at the policy level illustrates a point where I see constant weakness in the district.
I can’t speak to the rationale the board used to reject the Superintendent’s nomination for High School principal. I can only suggest that perhaps they too have been baffled by the lack of consistent transparency with regard to policy goals.Interim principal or not? How about now? How about now? Now? In the hours of school board meeting tape I have watched, it certainly appears that the board frequently confuses itself with respect to both policy and practice. From the abdication of the district strategic planning consultant to vocal community dissatisfaction regarding communication to the resignation of key administrative positions that could be seen as an exodus, it is clear the district needs to re-orient itself to regain a unified direction. Without that direction, the policy islands will remain and folks will do the best they can with what they have to work with – bracing for crises and conserving resources like tiny little developing nations. In fact, there is a collective level of knowledge, skill, and commitment among educators, students, and parents in this district that could rival any superpower. I encourage everyone to remember that with rights come responsibilities - the right to information comes with the responsibility not to assume its absence is a personal affront or indicative of nefarious doings. The right to be heard comes with the responsibility to be respectful. The right to participate comes with the responsibility to show up with solutions. And finally, as we see unfolding in front of us, the right to make decisions comes with the responsibility to manage the consequences. I encourage everyone to take a deep breath, roll up your sleeves, put on a smile, and ask “How can I help?”. I encourage the school board and district administrators to make answering that question their first priority.
Statement From Chair and Vice Chair
Statement Regarding Concerns Surrounding Principal at ORHS
(Oyster River, 4/20/11) The Chair and the Vice-Chair of the Oyster River Cooperative School Board would like to reassure the community that active steps are being taken to ensure that a principal will be in place for the 2011-2012 school year. Options are being discussed by the superintendent and his staff, as well as stakeholders in the high school and broader community. The board and the administration are fully cognizant of State laws and our NEAS&C accreditation regarding applicable personnel requirements. Our paramount concern at this stage is to do what is best for the students of the district. The school board is committed to moving forward decisively and with all due speed.
Henry Brackett, Chair
Ann Wright, Vice-Chair
(Oyster River, 4/20/11) The Chair and the Vice-Chair of the Oyster River Cooperative School Board would like to reassure the community that active steps are being taken to ensure that a principal will be in place for the 2011-2012 school year. Options are being discussed by the superintendent and his staff, as well as stakeholders in the high school and broader community. The board and the administration are fully cognizant of State laws and our NEAS&C accreditation regarding applicable personnel requirements. Our paramount concern at this stage is to do what is best for the students of the district. The school board is committed to moving forward decisively and with all due speed.
Henry Brackett, Chair
Ann Wright, Vice-Chair
Letter to Foster's Editor
UPDATE: This letter was written by:
Luci Gardner
Durham, NH
Foster's refused to print this.
Dear Sir:
Your editorial ‘Respect Calls For Respect’ gives no respect to elected School Board members who voted to reject Superintendent Howard Colter’s nominee for a replacement principal of Oyster River High School. Your statement that you “must chastise the Board for its [no confirm] vote” has no meaning other than the Board vote had to be to confirm, a sop, instead of a “slap in the face to those who put in countless hours vetting candidates.” You accuse the Board of cowardly conduct in “hiding behind the Right to Know Law’s personnel exception and “the tight-lipped way it has handled criticism” even though the Board is bound by State statute to be ‘tight-lipped’ and inconsistently you suggest members may also be “in violation” of the same law that prevents them from speaking. Finally, without knowing the salary or term expectation of the candidate, you demand a “cogent and acceptable” explanation for Monday’s vote” as though you are entitled to one. In your view the Board serves as rubber stamp to the superintendent and has only a pro forma vote and needs “chastisement” when it acts independently.
But, the same editorial gives respect to the Oyster River students many of whom had disrespected Board members on the night of the vote heckling and jeering, yelling code words for obscenities, totally out of control and upset because “ the Board had not listened to their choice of Campbell : “we knew who we wanted.” They demanded the vote be changed and Campbell be immediately hired: shameful bullying conduct which necessitated the police. (April 14, 2011 Foster’s article.)
You praise these students for their “ respectful protest” walkout from school, protesting a ‘ no confirm’ vote of the School Board, the only Board that has the power of confirmation. Your editorial gives credence to a protest about the final vote in a process the students apparently know nothing about.
The protest was not respectful: Some students who did not join the walk out were asked why they remained in school. The words “get their addresses and go to their homes” were plainly heard with laughing and gaiety from that marching band and signs such as “Open your eyes” and “Two Years Adrift/ No Way” could be clearly seen. Near the end of the video a voice can be heard shouting “We’re coming to get you on the 27th.”
We are not talking Thoreau and civil disobedience here; no governmental injustice had been done to these students who simply did not get the vote they wanted and apparently also thought the Board was required to rubber stamp Colter’s and their choice. We are talking just plain bullying and intimidation. How much better if Superintendent Colter had turned the walk-out into a learning experience and insisted they return to school and study the Board of Education’s process as well as state statutes regarding the choice of a new principal instead of greeting them with respect after they disrespected the School Board as well as the confirmation process.
What did the students learn from their “respectful protest” and what further mob behaviors can we expect from them on the 27th as they demand with you “cogent and acceptable” explanation of a vote they do not care to accept?
Luci Gardner
Durham, NH
Foster's refused to print this.
Dear Sir:
Your editorial ‘Respect Calls For Respect’ gives no respect to elected School Board members who voted to reject Superintendent Howard Colter’s nominee for a replacement principal of Oyster River High School. Your statement that you “must chastise the Board for its [no confirm] vote” has no meaning other than the Board vote had to be to confirm, a sop, instead of a “slap in the face to those who put in countless hours vetting candidates.” You accuse the Board of cowardly conduct in “hiding behind the Right to Know Law’s personnel exception and “the tight-lipped way it has handled criticism” even though the Board is bound by State statute to be ‘tight-lipped’ and inconsistently you suggest members may also be “in violation” of the same law that prevents them from speaking. Finally, without knowing the salary or term expectation of the candidate, you demand a “cogent and acceptable” explanation for Monday’s vote” as though you are entitled to one. In your view the Board serves as rubber stamp to the superintendent and has only a pro forma vote and needs “chastisement” when it acts independently.
But, the same editorial gives respect to the Oyster River students many of whom had disrespected Board members on the night of the vote heckling and jeering, yelling code words for obscenities, totally out of control and upset because “ the Board had not listened to their choice of Campbell : “we knew who we wanted.” They demanded the vote be changed and Campbell be immediately hired: shameful bullying conduct which necessitated the police. (April 14, 2011 Foster’s article.)
You praise these students for their “ respectful protest” walkout from school, protesting a ‘ no confirm’ vote of the School Board, the only Board that has the power of confirmation. Your editorial gives credence to a protest about the final vote in a process the students apparently know nothing about.
The protest was not respectful: Some students who did not join the walk out were asked why they remained in school. The words “get their addresses and go to their homes” were plainly heard with laughing and gaiety from that marching band and signs such as “Open your eyes” and “Two Years Adrift/ No Way” could be clearly seen. Near the end of the video a voice can be heard shouting “We’re coming to get you on the 27th.”
We are not talking Thoreau and civil disobedience here; no governmental injustice had been done to these students who simply did not get the vote they wanted and apparently also thought the Board was required to rubber stamp Colter’s and their choice. We are talking just plain bullying and intimidation. How much better if Superintendent Colter had turned the walk-out into a learning experience and insisted they return to school and study the Board of Education’s process as well as state statutes regarding the choice of a new principal instead of greeting them with respect after they disrespected the School Board as well as the confirmation process.
What did the students learn from their “respectful protest” and what further mob behaviors can we expect from them on the 27th as they demand with you “cogent and acceptable” explanation of a vote they do not care to accept?
Foster's ~ OR panel releases statement about principal vote, but meeting minutes stay sealed
OR panel releases statement about principal vote, but meeting minutes stay sealed
By RONI REINO
rreino@fosters.com
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
DURHAM — Oyster River School Board members have officially released their statement regarding the decision to not appoint a new high school principal, but nonpublic minutes from the April 13 meeting are still unavailable.
Earlier this month, School Board members were presented with two possible principal candidates. In a nonpublic session last Monday, superintendent Howard Colter nominated one candidate, but the board rejected the nomination on a 4-3 vote, with members James Kach, Megan Turnbull, Ann Lane and Jocelyn O'Quinn voting in the majority.
The decision to not chose a new principal caused outcry from the public, many of whom spoke at the Wednesday, April 13 meeting, saying they wanted answers.
School Board members said they wanted to present a public statement on why they made their decision, which caused some stir among members at the meeting to decide if they needed to go into a nonpublic session.
Diane Gorrow, of Soule, Leslie, Kidder, Sayward & Loughman, PLLC, who provides legal advice for the school board, was not present at the meeting and could not speak specifically on the April 13 meeting. However, she did say to go into a nonpublic session, board members would have had to conduct a roll-call vote, reading each name and either "yes" or "no" and provide a reason for conducting the meeting.
Members voted 6-1 to go into nonpublic session, with board member Ann Wright opposed.
Board members cited RSA 91-A: 3 II (c), "matters which, if discussed in public, would likely affect adversely the reputation of any person, other than a member of the public body itself, unless such person requests an open meeting."
At the meeting, Colter reminded the board multiple times to speak publicly about their statement.
"Editing of a public statement should be done publicly," he said. "If you are going to go into nonpublic, it should only be something to discuss something about candidates."
Brackett said he didn't want to be "inappropriate," and said the statement included information about the candidates.
"I'd like to do it in nonpublic and be told we can't bring that forth," Brackett said that night. "It might be an idea of what the public should be told. I want to be covered and not embarrass the candidates."
Colter had suggested the board would have to be careful, because they were getting close to going into a nonpublic session to discuss the statement, and possibly not the candidates.
Gorrow said for a nonpublic session, boards must abide by the RSA guidelines.
"A body cannot go into nonpublic just because they don't want the public to know what they are talking about," she said.
At the meeting, Chair Henry Brackett said they would be discussing the candidates who were presented for the high school principal position.
Nonpublic minutes from the April 13 meeting have not yet been released. RSA 91-A: 3 III states the minutes shall be publicly disclosed within 72 hours of the meeting, unless, by recorded vote of two-thirds of the members present.
No such vote has been noted to the public.
The Board has officially released the following statement:
"On April 11, 2011, the ORCSD School Board conducted two public interviews for high school principal candidates, both of whom had been vetted through a search committee. After the interviews, the School Board entered a nonpublic session, in which Superintendent Howard Colter nominated a candidate.
"After careful discussion and deliberation, the Board voted 4-3 against hiring the candidate nominated by the Superintendent. Many factors, including uncertainty about pending state budget cuts and the impact of the Superintendent's departure in June 2012, entered into this decision. While the Board recognizes that there are many questions about the deliberations that led to this vote, because these discussions occurred in a nonpublic session we are unable to share additional information.
"Moving forward, the Board will be discussing the impact of this decision and the future of the high school principal search at our next meeting, April 27 at 7 p.m. The Board continues to welcome input from the public via letters and e-mails and through public comment at meetings."
http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110420/GJNEWS_01/704209944
By RONI REINO
rreino@fosters.com
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
DURHAM — Oyster River School Board members have officially released their statement regarding the decision to not appoint a new high school principal, but nonpublic minutes from the April 13 meeting are still unavailable.
Earlier this month, School Board members were presented with two possible principal candidates. In a nonpublic session last Monday, superintendent Howard Colter nominated one candidate, but the board rejected the nomination on a 4-3 vote, with members James Kach, Megan Turnbull, Ann Lane and Jocelyn O'Quinn voting in the majority.
The decision to not chose a new principal caused outcry from the public, many of whom spoke at the Wednesday, April 13 meeting, saying they wanted answers.
School Board members said they wanted to present a public statement on why they made their decision, which caused some stir among members at the meeting to decide if they needed to go into a nonpublic session.
Diane Gorrow, of Soule, Leslie, Kidder, Sayward & Loughman, PLLC, who provides legal advice for the school board, was not present at the meeting and could not speak specifically on the April 13 meeting. However, she did say to go into a nonpublic session, board members would have had to conduct a roll-call vote, reading each name and either "yes" or "no" and provide a reason for conducting the meeting.
Members voted 6-1 to go into nonpublic session, with board member Ann Wright opposed.
Board members cited RSA 91-A: 3 II (c), "matters which, if discussed in public, would likely affect adversely the reputation of any person, other than a member of the public body itself, unless such person requests an open meeting."
At the meeting, Colter reminded the board multiple times to speak publicly about their statement.
"Editing of a public statement should be done publicly," he said. "If you are going to go into nonpublic, it should only be something to discuss something about candidates."
Brackett said he didn't want to be "inappropriate," and said the statement included information about the candidates.
"I'd like to do it in nonpublic and be told we can't bring that forth," Brackett said that night. "It might be an idea of what the public should be told. I want to be covered and not embarrass the candidates."
Colter had suggested the board would have to be careful, because they were getting close to going into a nonpublic session to discuss the statement, and possibly not the candidates.
Gorrow said for a nonpublic session, boards must abide by the RSA guidelines.
"A body cannot go into nonpublic just because they don't want the public to know what they are talking about," she said.
At the meeting, Chair Henry Brackett said they would be discussing the candidates who were presented for the high school principal position.
Nonpublic minutes from the April 13 meeting have not yet been released. RSA 91-A: 3 III states the minutes shall be publicly disclosed within 72 hours of the meeting, unless, by recorded vote of two-thirds of the members present.
No such vote has been noted to the public.
The Board has officially released the following statement:
"On April 11, 2011, the ORCSD School Board conducted two public interviews for high school principal candidates, both of whom had been vetted through a search committee. After the interviews, the School Board entered a nonpublic session, in which Superintendent Howard Colter nominated a candidate.
"After careful discussion and deliberation, the Board voted 4-3 against hiring the candidate nominated by the Superintendent. Many factors, including uncertainty about pending state budget cuts and the impact of the Superintendent's departure in June 2012, entered into this decision. While the Board recognizes that there are many questions about the deliberations that led to this vote, because these discussions occurred in a nonpublic session we are unable to share additional information.
"Moving forward, the Board will be discussing the impact of this decision and the future of the high school principal search at our next meeting, April 27 at 7 p.m. The Board continues to welcome input from the public via letters and e-mails and through public comment at meetings."
http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110420/GJNEWS_01/704209944
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Letter of support for School Board decision making process
Letter to Town leaders from 4/12/11:
Town and State elected officials:
Last night the SB voted not to support the candidate that Superintendent Colter presented to the Board (see blog post below). This decision signals a shift away from "business as usual".
There will be resistance to this decision and other decisions that will shift power back to the Board. I believe that every member of this Board is passionate, thoughtful and committed to our children first. I also believe this group is dedicated to balancing the interests of the staff and the community, which may at times be in conflict.
I hope Town and State leaders will reach out to lend support and encouragement to our dedicated Board. If possible, please consider attending the April 27th SB meeting at 7:00 p.m. at the high school when they will discuss how they intend to more forward with the principal search.
Thank you for your time and dedication to our community.
Best,
Jenna Roberts
P.S. The community blog has extensive comments both for and against the decision that was made last night. You can check it out at: www.OysterRiverCommunity.blogspot.com
Town and State elected officials:
Last night the SB voted not to support the candidate that Superintendent Colter presented to the Board (see blog post below). This decision signals a shift away from "business as usual".
There will be resistance to this decision and other decisions that will shift power back to the Board. I believe that every member of this Board is passionate, thoughtful and committed to our children first. I also believe this group is dedicated to balancing the interests of the staff and the community, which may at times be in conflict.
I hope Town and State leaders will reach out to lend support and encouragement to our dedicated Board. If possible, please consider attending the April 27th SB meeting at 7:00 p.m. at the high school when they will discuss how they intend to more forward with the principal search.
Thank you for your time and dedication to our community.
Best,
Jenna Roberts
P.S. The community blog has extensive comments both for and against the decision that was made last night. You can check it out at: www.OysterRiverCommunity.blogspot.com
Sunday, April 17, 2011
WMUR Coverage
Please see the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZFpo1UDzRw&feature=related
Included are interviews with David Taylor, Jr. and Howard Colter.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZFpo1UDzRw&feature=related
Included are interviews with David Taylor, Jr. and Howard Colter.
Saturday, April 16, 2011
Foster's Editorial
Oyster River High School students as well as the school's administration are to be congratulated for the civil and responsible way they reacted Thursday to the School Board's rejection of Justin Campbell to be the next principal.
At the same time, Foster's Daily Democrat must chastise the School Board for its vote and the tight-lipped way it has handled criticism.
On Monday, the School Board rejected the nomination of Campbell, director of academic studies at Milford High School. He would have taken over for Laura Rogers, who is leaving in June. His selection came at the end of an exhaustive review of dozens of candidates, with the goal of having a replacement by the time Rogers departs.
However, after coming out of executive session, the board rejected the nomination by a 4-3 vote. This set off a storm of criticism the board has refused to deal with other than to say it was a personnel matter and to indicate it may also be a budget matter connected to state funding.
On Wednesday, Foster's Daily Democrat was notified students were planning to walk out in protest the following day.
The term "walkout" conjures up images of the 1960s when students surprised administrations by leaving the classroom unannounced or staging sit-ins.
On Thursday, the student walkout was anything but disrespectful or a surprise. And there were no sit-ins, just respectful protest.
For the administration's part, Superintendent Howard Colter greeted respect with respect. He welcomed a student delegation to his office to discuss the matter.
Now it is time for the Oyster River School Board to do the same.
Hiding behind the Right to Know law's personnel exception is cowardly. It may also be in violation of the law.
If, as statements have indicated, the board is concerned with state funding cuts, there is nothing to prevent board members from saying so.
The board also had options on Monday other than a simple up-or-down vote on Campbell. Again, if the concern was over money — salary or otherwise — a vote could have simply been delayed until the next meeting.
Instead the board voted to reject Colter's nomination of Campbell with apparently no explanation to anyone — a slap in the face to those who put in countless hours vetting candidates.
Concerns have been growing for some time that the Oyster River School Board has become dysfunctional and that infighting among members has taken over.
The topic has been fodder for accusations during the last few election cycles.
The board's handling of Campbell's nomination only continues to foster the belief that board members have moved farther away from their job of serving the residents of the district and particularly the students, focusing more on their own petty squabbles.
Foster's Daily Democrat would hope there is a cogent and acceptable explanation for Monday's vote. If so, the students, the school's administration and this newspaper are more than willing to listen.
To that end, the School Board should do the responsible thing — as students did on Friday — and clear the air with a thorough explanation of Monday's vote.
It's what they owe the community.
At the same time, Foster's Daily Democrat must chastise the School Board for its vote and the tight-lipped way it has handled criticism.
On Monday, the School Board rejected the nomination of Campbell, director of academic studies at Milford High School. He would have taken over for Laura Rogers, who is leaving in June. His selection came at the end of an exhaustive review of dozens of candidates, with the goal of having a replacement by the time Rogers departs.
However, after coming out of executive session, the board rejected the nomination by a 4-3 vote. This set off a storm of criticism the board has refused to deal with other than to say it was a personnel matter and to indicate it may also be a budget matter connected to state funding.
On Wednesday, Foster's Daily Democrat was notified students were planning to walk out in protest the following day.
The term "walkout" conjures up images of the 1960s when students surprised administrations by leaving the classroom unannounced or staging sit-ins.
On Thursday, the student walkout was anything but disrespectful or a surprise. And there were no sit-ins, just respectful protest.
For the administration's part, Superintendent Howard Colter greeted respect with respect. He welcomed a student delegation to his office to discuss the matter.
Now it is time for the Oyster River School Board to do the same.
Hiding behind the Right to Know law's personnel exception is cowardly. It may also be in violation of the law.
If, as statements have indicated, the board is concerned with state funding cuts, there is nothing to prevent board members from saying so.
The board also had options on Monday other than a simple up-or-down vote on Campbell. Again, if the concern was over money — salary or otherwise — a vote could have simply been delayed until the next meeting.
Instead the board voted to reject Colter's nomination of Campbell with apparently no explanation to anyone — a slap in the face to those who put in countless hours vetting candidates.
Concerns have been growing for some time that the Oyster River School Board has become dysfunctional and that infighting among members has taken over.
The topic has been fodder for accusations during the last few election cycles.
The board's handling of Campbell's nomination only continues to foster the belief that board members have moved farther away from their job of serving the residents of the district and particularly the students, focusing more on their own petty squabbles.
Foster's Daily Democrat would hope there is a cogent and acceptable explanation for Monday's vote. If so, the students, the school's administration and this newspaper are more than willing to listen.
To that end, the School Board should do the responsible thing — as students did on Friday — and clear the air with a thorough explanation of Monday's vote.
It's what they owe the community.
Friday, April 15, 2011
Teacher Ethics
This was emailed to me last night, from a citizens with obvious concerns. This citizens highlighted the first two on this page.
~~ ChrisAnn
OYSTER RIVER COOPERATIVE SCHOOL BOARD
Policy Code: GBC
Date of Adoption: September 1971
Page 4 of 6
CODE OF ETHICS: PROFESSIONAL (continued)
In fulfilling his/her obligation to the public, the educator --
1. Shall not misrepresent an institution or organization with which s/he is affiliated and shall take adequate precautions to distinguish between his/her personal and institutional or organizational views.
2. Shall not knowingly distort or misrepresent the facts concerning educational matters in direct and indirect public expressions.
3. Shall not interfere with a colleague's exercise or political and citizenship rights and responsibilities.
4. Shall not use institutional privileges for private gain or to promote political candidates or partisan political activities.
5. Shall accept no gratuities, gifts, or favors that might impair or appear to impair professional judgment nor offer any favor, service, or thing of value to obtain special advantage.
~~ ChrisAnn
OYSTER RIVER COOPERATIVE SCHOOL BOARD
Policy Code: GBC
Date of Adoption: September 1971
Page 4 of 6
CODE OF ETHICS: PROFESSIONAL (continued)
In fulfilling his/her obligation to the public, the educator --
1. Shall not misrepresent an institution or organization with which s/he is affiliated and shall take adequate precautions to distinguish between his/her personal and institutional or organizational views.
2. Shall not knowingly distort or misrepresent the facts concerning educational matters in direct and indirect public expressions.
3. Shall not interfere with a colleague's exercise or political and citizenship rights and responsibilities.
4. Shall not use institutional privileges for private gain or to promote political candidates or partisan political activities.
5. Shall accept no gratuities, gifts, or favors that might impair or appear to impair professional judgment nor offer any favor, service, or thing of value to obtain special advantage.
PERSONNEL-RECRUITMENT AND SELECTION Building Principals
OYSTER RIVER COOPERATIVE SCHOOL BOARD
Policy Code: GCC-R
Date of Adoption: April 14, 1981 Dates of Revision: October 16, 1996; April 7, 1999
PERSONNEL -- RECRUITMENT AND SELECTION
Building Principals
The board will determine its level of involvement prior to the beginning of a search. The following are procedures for the recruitment and election of principals in the Oyster River Cooperative School District.
1. The assistant superintendent will advertise available position(s) with state employment offices, selected colleges and universities, the district office and local school buildings, and in selected national, state and regional print and/or electronic media, when appropriate, within two weeks of a verified vacancy.
2. The superintendent, assistant superintendent, and representative(s) of the board will screen applications, advise those from whom references and placement papers are requested, and identify candidates to be invited for interviews.
3. Interviews will be scheduled as follows:*
a. Building committee
b. Parent/community committee (including student representative(s) for high
school principal recruitment only)
c. Leadership Team of central office administration/district principals (less superintendent)
d. Superintendent, with a representative of the board
4. An on-site visitation committee will observe final candidates in their school community, whenever practicable. Composition of a site visitation committee will be determined by the superintendent or his/her designee, in consultation with the board.
* Candidates interviewed at levels 3a-c above will not necessarily be referred to levels 3d.
5. The school board will:
Interview the finalist candidates. It is expected that there will be at least two finalists unless there are extenuating circumstances.
Receive verbal report(s) of the administrative committee, building committee, parent/community committee and student committee, as appropriate.
Deliberate the report(s) with the superintendent.
6. The superintendent of schools will nominate a candidate for and will provide the board with backup rationale supporting the nomination. Such information will be provided prior to the meeting.
7. The school board will elect or reject the nominated candidate.
Policy Code: GCC-R
Date of Adoption: April 14, 1981 Dates of Revision: October 16, 1996; April 7, 1999
PERSONNEL -- RECRUITMENT AND SELECTION
Building Principals
The board will determine its level of involvement prior to the beginning of a search. The following are procedures for the recruitment and election of principals in the Oyster River Cooperative School District.
1. The assistant superintendent will advertise available position(s) with state employment offices, selected colleges and universities, the district office and local school buildings, and in selected national, state and regional print and/or electronic media, when appropriate, within two weeks of a verified vacancy.
2. The superintendent, assistant superintendent, and representative(s) of the board will screen applications, advise those from whom references and placement papers are requested, and identify candidates to be invited for interviews.
3. Interviews will be scheduled as follows:*
a. Building committee
b. Parent/community committee (including student representative(s) for high
school principal recruitment only)
c. Leadership Team of central office administration/district principals (less superintendent)
d. Superintendent, with a representative of the board
4. An on-site visitation committee will observe final candidates in their school community, whenever practicable. Composition of a site visitation committee will be determined by the superintendent or his/her designee, in consultation with the board.
* Candidates interviewed at levels 3a-c above will not necessarily be referred to levels 3d.
5. The school board will:
Interview the finalist candidates. It is expected that there will be at least two finalists unless there are extenuating circumstances.
Receive verbal report(s) of the administrative committee, building committee, parent/community committee and student committee, as appropriate.
Deliberate the report(s) with the superintendent.
6. The superintendent of schools will nominate a candidate for and will provide the board with backup rationale supporting the nomination. Such information will be provided prior to the meeting.
7. The school board will elect or reject the nominated candidate.
Thursday, April 14, 2011
State Law--Non-Public Meetings
TITLE VI
PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES
CHAPTER 91-A
ACCESS TO GOVERNMENTAL RECORDS AND MEETINGS
Section 91-A:3
I. (a) Public bodies shall not meet in nonpublic session, except for one of the purposes set out in paragraph II. No session at which evidence, information, or testimony in any form is received shall be closed to the public, except as provided in paragraph II. No public body may enter nonpublic session, except pursuant to a motion properly made and seconded.
(b) Any motion to enter nonpublic session shall state on its face the specific exemption under paragraph II which is relied upon as foundation for the nonpublic session. The vote on any such motion shall be by roll call, and shall require the affirmative vote of the majority of members present.
(c) All discussions held and decisions made during nonpublic session shall be confined to the matters set out in the motion.
II. Only the following matters shall be considered or acted upon in nonpublic session:
(a) The dismissal, promotion, or compensation of any public employee or the disciplining of such employee, or the investigation of any charges against him or her, unless the employee affected (1) has a right to a meeting and (2) requests that the meeting be open, in which case the request shall be granted.
(b) The hiring of any person as a public employee.
(c) Matters which, if discussed in public, would likely affect adversely the reputation of any person, other than a member of the public body itself, unless such person requests an open meeting. This exemption shall extend to any application for assistance or tax abatement or waiver of a fee, fine, or other levy, if based on inability to pay or poverty of the applicant.
Crossed a Line
I know that a lot of people in the community visit this site. When allowed, anonymous posters flood in and they can degrade into crass and demeaning comments. However, what was posted outside this blog on YouTube tonight has clearly crossed the line. When an adult and former board member states "get their addresses; go to their homes" directing the 500 members of the student body to seek out the school board members houses, clearly this adult is out of line.
What's more is the person filming is yet another former board member.
I will not stand for this and hope the rest of the students and community support me in this effort. I have written a brief email to Howard Colter to hold an emergency assembly and stop this before it escalates even more.
I hope civility and common sense rise above stoking an emotional fire.
Below is a comment that was posted tonight. Everyone should read it and really understand what it says.
"My son participated in the walkout today, and he came home pumped up about have made a statement!
My husband had a sit-down with him tonight about the importance of finding out the facts before you join group--no matter how right or virtuous they may appear to be. There are always two sides to an issue.
We live in a democracy in which we elect officials to make decisions for us--and when you disagree you make that known with your next ballot--NOT with immediate knee-jerk bullying.
I am grateful to every single current and past school board member for their work (and undoubtedly immense emotional involvement).
I do not know what went on in the non-public session. I appreciate the thought that each and every one of the school board members put into their vote. I appreciate that they were elected by the whole community.
If you'd like to make a change, then run for school board or work for a school board candidate next time around. "
What's more is the person filming is yet another former board member.
I will not stand for this and hope the rest of the students and community support me in this effort. I have written a brief email to Howard Colter to hold an emergency assembly and stop this before it escalates even more.
I hope civility and common sense rise above stoking an emotional fire.
Below is a comment that was posted tonight. Everyone should read it and really understand what it says.
"My son participated in the walkout today, and he came home pumped up about have made a statement!
My husband had a sit-down with him tonight about the importance of finding out the facts before you join group--no matter how right or virtuous they may appear to be. There are always two sides to an issue.
We live in a democracy in which we elect officials to make decisions for us--and when you disagree you make that known with your next ballot--NOT with immediate knee-jerk bullying.
I am grateful to every single current and past school board member for their work (and undoubtedly immense emotional involvement).
I do not know what went on in the non-public session. I appreciate the thought that each and every one of the school board members put into their vote. I appreciate that they were elected by the whole community.
If you'd like to make a change, then run for school board or work for a school board candidate next time around. "
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)