In the non-public session Colter nominated his favored candidate, Justin Campbell. The board voted 3-4 to deny the nomination. Colter then declined to nominate Thompson. It is unclear how the board will proceed at this time, given that both candidates have been rejected by either Colter or the board.
UPDATE: I have brought back Anonymous comments as I feel this topic is important enough to allow comments from anonymous posters. However, any negative or personal attacks will not be tolerated and those comments will either be edited or removed completely.
UPDATE2: I received a letter from a member of the principal search committee this morning that was an update from March 31, 2011. I apologize that this wasn't posted earlier but I check this account infrequently and only saw it this morning. Here is that letter:
So, as to the committee—It is comprised of 3 community members, 2 school board members, the superintendent, the director of guidance, the high school library media specialist (who is here tonight) and several faculty members representing just about every department at the school. In total, there are 15members on the committee.
We held our first meeting on February 10th. This meeting was introductory—we met each other, we learned about the process, the confidentiality requirements, and we talked about important attributes in a principal in general and for this community specifically. The teachers on the committee had spoken with their departments ahead of time to generate ideas. The list of attributes we came up with are:
A principal who
- has classroom experience
- Is not a micro manager
- Has Collaborative leadership style but is able to make a final, and sometimes difficult, decision when needed
- Does evaluations for growth of teachers, rather than just competence in annual reviews
- Is accessible
- Is flexible, open to a wide variety of student pathways
- Will value our traditions, but has vision & isn’t happy with status quo
- gets to know students, knows everyone’s names
- is intelligent
- is visionary—up-to-date on school change
- has a positive attitude and a happy outlook
- is able to delegate, and
- who is a pro-active communicator
We placed ads in a variety of places. Of course, there was an internal posting for the position. There was a broadcast fax through the New Hampshire School Adminstrators’ Association. Ads were also placed in Ed Jobs NH, Education Week, Fosters Daily Democrat, the National Association of Secondary School Principals, the NH Association of School Principals, NH School Administrators Association, and School Spring. Some of the ads were traditional media and some were online placements. By, the first week of March, we had 44 complete applications from all over the country—the South, The Mid-West, the Mid Atlantic States, the South West, and New England. Candidates had experience in public schools, charter schools, magnet schools, international schools, and parochial schools.
The applications consisted of a cover letter, CV, transcripts, and recommendation letters. The applications were kept in the high school library in a locked filing cabinet and in the SAU office for review to ensure that confidentiality was maintained. Reviewing the applications was very time consuming. I personally visited the SAU office 3 times and spent between 6-8 hours reading through all of the documents and taking detailed notes. I also asked a few other committee members about the amount of time they spent going through the applications and did a tally to estimate the total number of hours the committee has spent on the search so far and calculate 285 hours.
On March 3rd, the committee met again to choose first round interviewees. Having never done this before, I went in prepared for healthy, heated discussions. The names were placed around the room. We were given ten dots to place by candidates names in any manner in which we chose--- we could place all of our dots on one person or spread them out among candidates. We discussed minimum dot number criteria debating between different minimum number thresholds. There was also some discussion of some of the candidates who did or did not make certain thresholds. In the end, however, it was a healthy and collegial discussion that led to a consensus on our first round interviewees.
We ended up with 9 people for first round interviews. These candidates came from 5 different states. 8 candidates accepted our invitation.
Before the first round interviews, we also decided on the format for the interviews. Each first round interview would be 40 minutes, and we would be strict about keeping the candidates on this time limit to be fair to everyone. We were given sample interview questions that had been used in previous searches (mast way, orms). We chose and modified the questions and ended up with 7 questions. We asked the superintendent to ask the questions so that the committee members could listen and take notes.
We conducted the first round interviews during the week of March 7th. The candidates answered our pre-set questions. We were allowed to ask follow up questions if we had any, and if there was time at the end the candidate could ask us questions.
After we completed the first round, we met again to vote on who we wanted to invite back for second round. This time, all of the names were put on a board. We had as many votes as we wanted (with in reason) but could not apply them to just one candidate, i.e., I couldn’t vote for my favorite 3 times. After this vote, there were 2 candidates who were clearly the top. There were several other candidates in the next tier who had strong levels of support from some of the members on the committee. We had a healthy amount of discussion about the remaining candidates before we went back and voted again. At this point, one candidate stood out form the rest. Had there been two, we probably would have gone with both, but that isn’t the way it worked out. So, we ended up with 3 second round candidates, two are from New Hampshire and the third was from out-of-state.
For the second round, we changed the format with the intent of it being more conversational. We asked the candidates to propose topics, and we came up with our own. We then chose 3 topics and tried to keep the meeting to an hour. We went over each time.
After completing these interviews, the candidate from out-of-state asked to no longer be considered for the position. We discussed this at our meeting on March 21st and the question of whether or not we should go back and invite other candidates for an interview. In that conversation, it became clear that the committee felt confident that we had two top quality candidates and that going back to candidates who had already been eliminated from the process was not necessary. Plus, there was the feeling that there might be time pressure as these candidates may have offers from other districts.
This is where we are now. We have two finalists who, I personally, am happy about. Tomorrow, we will do site visits at both of their current high schools. We have meetings set up with students, teachers, administrators, and community members thereThen, next week, each candidate will visit Oyster River. They will spend the day meeting with faculty, staff, students, and administrators. We will be gathering feedback from all of these groups.And, on April 7th, we have planned a community reception for them in the ORHS library. There will be ballots for community members, and we hope to get good feedback from that event as well. I also hope that board members will be able to attend the community reception. It will be held on Thursday, April 7th from 6-7:30 pm in the high school library. Finally, the committee will meet again and go through all of this feedback data and make our recommendation. . The candidates will then have a public interview with you on April 11th.
I'm disappointed that I couldn't attend tonight's meeting and even more disappointed to hear this news. As Editor-in-Chief of the Mouth of the River, I had the opportunity to interview both candidates. At the end of my second interview I found it incredibly difficult to decide which candidate I felt should get the job, not because neither was suited, but instead because both were so perfectly chosen by a panel of those who know the school best - the faculty. Unlike the school board, these individuals see what life is like in the school, what students need, what teachers need and what our new principal needs to bring to the table in order to achieve all this. I strongly believe that the panel chose two incredible individuals who could help this school succeed. Once again, the school board has focused on politics rather than what really needs to be addressed. Rather than asking students and faculty their feelings on the matter, the board has once again made an immature and irresponsible decision. I have a hard time holding back what I feel needs to be said.
ReplyDeleteIt's pathetic, really.
Signed,
Ben Belanger, Senior
benbelanger5@comcast.net
(603) 988-9103
Ben
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comment. What are your thoughts about the superintendent not nominating the second candidate after the first nomination failed?
As a clarification, the board cannot simply pick a candidate. They can only approve or reject the nomination as put forth from the superintendent.
ReplyDeleteI felt strongly that both candidates were well suited for the job - both in different ways. I feel that I, as well as a panel of other students and faculty, had an opportunity to see the candidates in a different setting than the board. Although I believe that some of us should have been consulted before a final verdict was made, that might be too much to ask...
ReplyDeleteHowever, Mr. Campbell was my top choice. He was an extremely intelligent man with morals and values that aligned perfectly with those of the school. He was incredibly good at communicating his ideas with others and I know that he was just as interested in hearing about the students and faculty of the school as we were in hearing about him.
That said, Mr. Thompson was an incredibly good fit for ORHS, as well. He seemed to have a deep care for students and student life and just as much for the faculty. He was incredibly easy to talk to and had some really great ideas. The year before he arrived at Souhegan, 13 students dropped out. After his first year as Dean of Students, 0 students dropped out. He was approachable and kind. Although I do feel that Mr. Campbell was just a little bit more suited for the job, it would be sort of a slap in the face to both candidates for Mr. Colter to nominate Thompson after Campbell's rejection.
That said, I don't think it would help much anyways. The board doesn't seem to be concerned with what will be best for this school, but instead is focusing on an immature game with Mr. Colter.
Ben Belanger
Ben
ReplyDeleteyour comments are very thoughtful and appreciated. I would just like to point out one group not included in your comments. Parents. Do you think parents should have equal involvement in the process?
Just my humble opinion, but I feel that the group of folks that both literally & figuratively foot the bill for the decisions of our district, seem to be viewed as those not capable of understanding education, issues with education, or issues within our high school.
Please remember that the school board is obligated to listen to their constituents. The school board often gets a bad deal in our community when politics has little to do with listening to and involving the entire community of our school district.
On a general note, and not directed at Ben~ I think it's glaring when the school board makes it's decision and it is immediately assumed to be a game with the SAU. It's glaring that there is such a negative attitude towards the school board. They are elected, volunteer group who dedicate many MANY hours towards improving our school district. They are required to follow procedure and vote on the suggested candidate brought forth from the two submitted by the search committee. Where does it say that they MUST vote to approve the recommended candidate? If they MUST vote to approve the nominated candidate, then why have the vote in the first place?
ReplyDeleteCommunity members are included on the principal hiring committee - parents, students, teachers... all the stakeholders are included. I think that the reaction that ChrisAnn is talking about stems from what we see as a disconnect between what is best for heading the school in a positive direction - hiring a principal for next year who will be a positive leader. If our reaction seems to jump at negative assumptions about the board - perhaps it's from the hours and hours spent on a process that included as many people as possible - and then ended up being for naught. -- Judy Kucera, Mouth of the River advisor
ReplyDeleteJudy,
ReplyDeleteI agree with some of your points. It is unfortunate that so much went into this, with little result except more distrust between the various sub groups of our district.
I disagree that parents were represented. The 'parents' on the committee where educators past/present and/or school board members past/present. That screams one mindset rather than an open dialogue.
I agree that there is a disconnect. I fear very few parents will speak out. Their kids are IN the system. It's a big risk to be vocal.
The SAU needs to communicate and needs to understand that this is highly educated community who can be trusted to be involved in the process, not just told to be quiet and do what the teachers tell us to do.
My eldest starts Middle School in a few months. The time is NOW to correct the issues I see in our system. Having said that, I have yet to meet a teacher I did not admire. I'm honestly sick of the distrust between the two groups which resposibility I put squarely at the feet of the SAU.
Thanks for the list of attributes and the letter. I thank the search committee for their time and effort in this process.
ReplyDeleteHowever, after reading the above letter, one attribute I find glaringly absent is a commitment to academic excellence. It seems that many of the attributes revolve around finding a principal that would be a good boss, rather than a leader who would guide the school to new levels of academic achievement.
I guess this doesn't matter anymore, since we have no new principal this morning. But going forward, I would hope to see this attribute added with as much weight, if not more, to the list.
I'm new to this blog, never posted before. I feel like I'm missing a big chunk of information. What was the reason given for the Board rejecting the candidate? I hope it was not purely based on his salary. If you want talented, well qualified people to work for you , you need to pay them well! This is true for big companies as well as teachers and principals. Even though I don't have all the details, I can't help but feel disappointed that a candidate that so many hard working and intelligent people on our search committee recommended was rejected. What now?
ReplyDeleteJeannine Ritchie, parent of 2 ORMS and 1 MW student
Why is it that the board was not provided with the opportunity to choose the other candidate?
ReplyDeleteIt sounds like they were given one choice, and one choice only? I appreciate the work of the committee, but in the end the board interviewed two candidates, rejected one, but then were not provided the chance to vote on the other.
I wonder if they had, if this morning we would in fact have a principal.
Both candidates lacked experience, but if they were brought forth by the committee it has to be due to the belief that one was stronger than the other. What did the board see that the committee did not?
But, most important, why were they not given the opportunity to vote on the other candidate?
Does anyone else see issues with the composition of the selection committee? If my math is right, there were 5 parents and 10 district employees. Employees who would work under the new principal held the majority vote? And only community members who are currently parents of students were on the committee? There are lots of retired educators and parents of former Oyster River students who might have added a depth of history to the committee. The teacher perspective is absolutely important, but a majority vote? I've just never heard of a job where I get to pick my new boss. Another group that wasn't represented is the parents who move to this district for the schools, but when they hit high school they choose to send their kids to a different school. I know people who have done this and it is a tough decision to continue paying the high taxes here along with tuition costs. Did anyone ask them why they felt the need to bail just before their kids entered the high school. I heard that 16 students in the current eighth grade have chosen to go somewhere else next year. (Please correct this number if it isn't accurate)
ReplyDeleteThis is all so very sad. In my mind, it is irrelevant if we agree with the process or even if we should have tried to hire a principal at all. The die was already cast, and we invited qualified individuals to come into our community, and it to me is shameful to treat them like this.
ReplyDeleteThe board had already had a debate about appointing an interim principal or going ahead with the search. I hope that this decision was not a re-debate of that issue. The damage is done now and it once again shows that trust and communication is at a perilously low point in our district.
I am eager to hear the board's explanation of their decision. I sincerely hope that it will make sense and help us to move forward and try and recover from this terribly awkward moment.
"The die was already cast"? Shouldn't we wait to hear why the board rejected the candidate before they are attacked? The selection committee was able to reject lots of people with no question. Why bother bringing the name to the board for a vote, if the board members aren't allowed to vote "no." Are they just supposed to rubber stamp the decision? Exactly what "damage" has been done?
ReplyDeleteShame on the board (which PARTICIPATED on the search committee) for abusing its power. Ann Lane said she wanted to witness moral outrage in this district, well now I hope she gets her wish. Think about it, anyone of any political stripe does not really want to see a board wielding the kind of power it wielded last night. They authorized a process that was followed and then they undermined it without account. For shame, and now Durham deservedly has egg on its face. This will reverberate across the next two crucial hires of a superintendent and a principal.
ReplyDeleteLet this be heard: as a taxpayer, I strongly object to the amount of time that (a) was wasted during this sham of a process, and (b) is being spent among school personnel dealing with the acrimony generated at the board level. I expect educators to keep their attention on the job they've been hired to do, which is to educate, and not deal with petty politics that stems from the board's inability to tell the difference between an actual crisis and the complaints of a few vocal community members.
Abusing its power? Weren't they exercising their right to vote? Just because the super nominated one person, they couldn't prefer the other person? The committee nominated two people. Maybe the majority of the board members liked the other person better. Were they supposed to vote for who they thought would do the best job or just the one the super nominated? If they were just suppose to agree with the super, then why let them vote? They didn't undermine the process, they were part of the process. Let them explain themselves before the lynching ceremony please.
ReplyDeleteMaybe we should all wait and hear what our board has to say and ask questions here or debate here. If the board abused their power, then cite it and provide examples. This is all in the board policy handbook which is available on the orcsd website. The process and policy in this decision is clear and the board exercised their right to vote. There really isn't any grey area. The reasons for the vote are what are unknown right now and until the board as a whole (or individually) tell us publicly, then it is just rumor. However, throwing out a phrase like "abusing power" serves only to drive away potential future candidates and divide the community. This is a different board and I expect a much more public and open response to this. In the past, there would little if any response to the community.
ReplyDeleteOne thing that no one has brought up yet...the search committee was formed (YES WITH TWO BOARD MEMBERS) prior to the March elections. Who, from the board, served on this committee? Was it the seats that were given up by those who chose not to re-run? That would be interesting to know!
ReplyDeleteAlso, the elections over the past few years have really signaled a mandate for change away from the status quo. With two new board members, perhaps they felt that the process wasn't timed right or perhaps was moving too quickly to fast track a high school principal in.
Whatever the reasons...I look forward to hearing a response!
How easy it is to criticize when you don't put your name on the barbs. I agree with Seth - we should wait until we hear the reasons behind the board's decision. Why should we expect or even demand that a board of elected officials rubber stamp approve the nomination of a committee? And, why aren't there ardent demands for Mr. Coulter to explain why Mr. Thompson wasn't nominated??
ReplyDeleteI will say it again, speaking up & putting your name on your words is a risky thing.
ReplyDeleteFor those of you who feel 'the complaints of a few vocal community members' are the only voices that's being heard....well....PUT YOUR NAME ON YOUR VOICE. Oh wait, then people will complain about you.
Public distrust is rooted in flawed communication. As I understand it thus far, the committee was formed by a general email sent to middle & high school students and those that attended the non televised school board meeting knew about the application. As the parent of FOUR children who unfortunately are not quite yet in middle school or high school....my involvement or that of my peer parent group is not wanted.
Shame because we're the demographic than can most easily up and move out of ORSD.
Think things are bad now, what happens if enrollment crashes for 5 years from now? How are we going to pay for our expensive school system then?
Howard should explain why the other candidate was not brought forward. The board should explain why they turned down the candidate who was brought forward. The committee did its work, they found two candidates. I do not believe either were that great, while at the tea I listened to both and simply put, was not impressed. However, I thought more would come out during the interviews. Sure enough, I became impressed with Robert Thompson, but the board was not provided with the opportunity to vote on that candidate. Why not? The committee brought forward two, the board interviewed, why were they only allowed one vote?????
ReplyDeleteNone of this makes sense and we all deserve an explanation.
The explanation of how the committee did its work is great. Thank you.
ReplyDeleteThe committee did its work, and the board did theirs.
-Why is no one questioning the fact that Mr. Colter did not do his?
-By only providing one choice to the board, is he not ignoring the work of the committee who brought forward two candidates?
-Is he not forcing the board into a corner by only allowing them to choose from Column A and not Column B?
It seems to me that the problem here is not that a committee did not work hard, they did and it is greatly appreciated.
-It seems once again Colter set up the board to fail.
-Remember Maynard, cutting teachers and other such cuts and issues? This is what he does.
-Now the blame will be placed with the volunteers we elected, and he who works for us all is not held accountable?
The buck stops with him, not the volunteers who did their best under tough circumstances.
When is this district going to understand that the teachers don't get everything they want? They are already best paid in the state and they work with a super who kisses their bottoms.
ReplyDeleteHow dare anyone else question their advice?
Get a grip, no one is unaccountable. The district's employess including the teachers work for the citizens. Get thicker skin if they think they're being treated poorly because their opinion that an interim principal is not the most important factor.
How dare the school board do what it's elected to do? Actually think and make decisions based on the facts as they see them.
Gee whiz, sounds like the ought to eliminate the school board and just do a teacher survey whenever a decision needs to be made. It's the ONLY opinion that matters.
The previous paragraph is sarcastic, but I suspect many teachers/administrators and those bound to them were nodding their heads.
To answer a question from above:
ReplyDelete(found in minutes on-line, hope it is correct)
Board members that served prior to March: Jocelyn O'Quinn, Ann Wright, Jennifer Rief (as a citizen but was on board when this all started)
Board members that served post election:
Jocelyn O'Quinn
Ann Wright
Joeclyn was unable to attend on-site visit, Ann Lane attended for her.
Citizens who served:
Julie Reece, Marjorie Wolfson, Jennifer Rief
To the poster two comments ago,
ReplyDeleteyour comments about faculty are absolutely uncalled for. This committee has lots of outside members who are not teachers nor staff. We are the ones who have to work with this individual. We are the ones who have degrees in education have some knowledge of best practice in the class room (how much do you have?), we are the ones that are (as one of my colleagues says) losing our mother (Ms. Rogers). We are the ones who are looking for our leader - our father if you will.
We have a stake in this decision. But it is the kids who have the biggest role in this. Why make the students suffer with an interim just so 4 members of the board can say they stuffed Howard and skewered him over the coals. This is no way to treat any professional regardless of what you think of him.
This board has become a joke. The community should be embarassed by their actions. The Oyster River community is now a laughing stock of the state. If you think a good principal candidate is willing to put themselves forward after this debacle, you are absolutely, certifiably crazy.
Jim Kach says he wants our district to be the best district in the region. Well, what he just did last night was make this district one of the worst - with just one vote. The moral outrage needs to begin. What Jim, Joscelyn, Megan and Ann Lane did was inexcuseable, unforgivable, rude and tyrannical.
by the way, to your comment that we are the best paid teachers in the state: we once were the 2nd highest paid teachers in the statebut now our salaries fall about 20th in the state.
See, while the ladies all deserve respect in their own right, this is not a group of parents that are not also educators or school board members [past/present]. This does not represent my peer group of parents.
ReplyDeleteWell, to be entirely honest, I don't know Marjorie Wolfson, whom I will assume is also to be respected in her own right or she would not have been selected.
Also, I have no interest in being on said committee. I hired for my previous career and found it not a task I enjoyed. So I appreciate all involved for what would have been torture for me.
Parents need a forum in which to discuss our concerns, our philosophy, and our hopes for our district.
I am like Dorothy, if I keep repeating myself [and figuratively clicking my keans] perhaps I will see a happy result.
I concur with ChrisAnn. I never heard about the formation of this committee and those of us with kids in Mast Way or Moharimet never got notification of such an opportunity. No offense to parents of the middle school or high school students but to effect change takes a long time and those of us in the community with younger kids have much more of a runway to accomplish just that!
ReplyDeleteAgain...lack of communication so I am very thankful to see a blog like this crop up when there is a need like this!!!
I agree with the above post asking why the superintendent didn't offer both of the candidates selected by the committee. That seems like an obvious move after they rejected the first candidate. The superintendent needs to explain this. This is what makes the work of the committee seem wasted. They submitted two candidates, so just because the superentendent's first choice wasn't selected, they stop there? It sounds like he needs to do the explaining, not the SB.
ReplyDeleteAnd there were only two people who weren't either district employees or SB members/past members on the selection committee? That sounds messed up to me. In the populations of three towns they couldn't come up with more than two people?
One of the candidates - Bob Thompson - mentioned a "community council" in Souhegan HS. Here is their link. What a novel idea! Perhaps we can recreate this success here for the redux of the HS principal search.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.sprise.com/shs/community_council.aspx?id=9075
Regarding the composition of the selection committee: Didn't the superintendent select the committee members? This was problematic from the start. There should have been a notice in Foster's asking interested community members to submit their names. The committee shouldn't have been quietly cherry picked by the superintendent. All three towns weren't represented. There are plenty of parents of Oyster River alums who weren't represented. They actually have a historical perspective that is of value. Also, parents of kids who choose to leave Oyster River for high school weren't representsd. With dwindling numbers, it might be good to know what could have kept them here. Students weren't represented either.
ReplyDeleteWhy did Colter present two names if he wasn't actually willing to submit both of them. When the vote didn't go as he wanted, he didn't submit the second name. He is the one who is insulting the work of the selection committee.
ReplyDeleteTo the poster two comments ago,
ReplyDeleteyour comments about faculty are absolutely uncalled for. This committee has lots of outside members who are not teachers nor staff. We are the ones who have to work with this individual. We are the ones who have degrees in education have some knowledge of best practice in the class room (how much do you have?), we are the ones that are (as one of my colleagues says) losing our mother (Ms. Rogers). We are the ones who are looking for our leader - our father if you will.
We have a stake in this decision. But it is the kids who have the biggest role in this. Why make the students suffer with an interim just so 4 members of the board can say they stuffed Howard and skewered him over the coals. This is no way to treat any professional regardless of what you think of him.
This board has become a joke. The community should be embarassed by their actions. The Oyster River community is now a laughing stock of the state. If you think a good principal candidate is willing to put themselves forward after this debacle, you are absolutely, certifiably crazy.
Jim Kach says he wants our district to be the best district in the region. Well, what he just did last night was make this district one of the worst - with just one vote. The moral outrage needs to begin. What Jim, Joscelyn, Megan and Ann Lane did was inexcuseable, unforgivable, rude and tyrannical.
by the way, to your comment that we are the best paid teachers in the state: we once were the 2nd highest paid teachers in the statebut now our salaries fall about 20th in the state.
Seth, would it be possible to post the resumes of both candidates? I'm curious if their experience qualifies them to be a high school principal. Has either held the position of principal before? From what I can find on this blog, one is currently Director of Academic Studies, and one is Dean of Students.
ReplyDeleteI'm certainly not trying to disparage either candidate. I'll assume that each is throughly professional. But I have to wonder if there were no other qualified candidates with experience as high school principals.
Were these two the absolute best Oyster River could attract? If not, let's continue the search. If so, let's hire one of them, rookies or not!
So if Howard selected the committee members, so what? He is the superintendent. He runs the district for the board - no matter how disfunctional the board is.
ReplyDeleteThere is no way that anyone can say the committee wasn't well-rounded. There were people from all stakeholders - teachers, administrators, tax payers, board members, community members and parents. I'm not sure who else you could have be on the committee. As it is, the committee has 15 people on it and that is on the large side for such a committee. I guess we could have had a group of 75 on the committee - hell, why not make it a group of 100 to make it even.
Great question re:Resumes. However, I don't have them! If anyone does, please send them to me and I can post them as a link.
ReplyDeleteTo the poster two comments ago,
ReplyDeleteyour comments about faculty are absolutely uncalled for. This committee has lots of outside members who are not teachers nor staff. We are the ones who have to work with this individual. We are the ones who have degrees in education have some knowledge of best practice in the class room (how much do you have?), we are the ones that are (as one of my colleagues says) losing our mother (Ms. Rogers). We are the ones who are looking for our leader - our father if you will.
We have a stake in this decision. But it is the kids who have the biggest role in this. Why make the students suffer with an interim just so 4 members of the board can say they stuffed Howard and skewered him over the coals. This is no way to treat any professional regardless of what you think of him.
This board has become a joke. The community should be embarassed by their actions. The Oyster River community is now a laughing stock of the state. If you think a good principal candidate is willing to put themselves forward after this debacle, you are absolutely, certifiably crazy.
Jim Kach says he wants our district to be the best district in the region. Well, what he just did last night was make this district one of the worst - with just one vote. The moral outrage needs to begin.
by the way, to your comment that we are the best paid teachers in the state: we once were the 2nd highest paid teachers in the statebut now our salaries fall about 20th in the state.
Seth,
ReplyDeleteDon't bother putting the resumes up. The decision was made. The only thing that would do is make this community more disfunctional. It would make one side feel good while make the other side angry. The time to have done that was before last night to allow the community to stew over them. Also, I can't imagine the two candidates would approve of their resumes be posted on an Oyster River Blog - the very community that just snubbed them.
Don't post them. Please! For the sake of our sanity.
There resumes would become the political football that will cause more trouble. Don't do it.
ReplyDeleteOK. Point taken. No resumes!
ReplyDeleteI fail to see how any board members "stuffed + skewered" anyone. In not submitting the second name, Howard has embarrassed the selection committee. He needs to answer to that. And the board was given one candidate to consider so that they could make their own decision. Maybe Jim Kach liked the other candidate better. Remember that the selection committee submitted two names. By not submitting the second candidate (approved by the selection committee), Howard Colter made the board look bad? Was this his goal?
ReplyDeleteTo the poster at 3:44pm. Guess what? Not only staff is educated in best practices, not only staff have to work with the principal. Very arrogant to think that you & your coworkers are the only ones whose opinion matters.
ReplyDeleteGuess it stinks that the candidate the teachers cherry picked was not hired.
To the teacher who commented. Thank you for your service to our students.
ReplyDeleteThe board is doing their job, we should all be thanking them as much as we are thanking you.
To attack volunteers in our community is wrong.
No one knows what took place in the non-public session, and to make assumptions on why a choice was made is wrong.
I hope when you teach my children you teach them to look at both sides of the coin, and not the shiny one you prefer.
I totally agree with the posting above.
ReplyDeleteI think everyone should lighten up. As a teacher I have worked with and for both good and ineffective principals. Give credit to the teachers in the classroom with the students. If we have good teachers, we will have successful students. Leave the whole thing alone for awhile and see what comes of it. If neither candidate was acceptable to the board or the superintendent, LET IT GO. Start a new search. This is NOT be the first time, the first school, or the first principal search this has ever happened to. It certainly won't be the last nor will it be the demise of the ORCSD. The community needs to stop the immature bickering I have witnessed on the blog today. And unless you are willing to sign your name, don't use other peoples' names in your posting. SHOW THE CLASS YOU FEEL THE DISTRICT HAS.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThe above post was removed as promised. There will be no tolerance for over the line type comments that attack our teachers and community.
ReplyDeletePlease keep things civil. Everyone is well-educated in the community. Please demonstrate that here.
Thank you to "lighten up"
ReplyDeleteI couldn't agree more. Our district is stronger than this, and a "do over" will allow our community to make this entire process more open.
I thank the committee for their work and hope they do not believe it was for naught.
I moved here from a district that once conducted a search 2xs before the right candidate was found for our elementary school leadership position (called Dean of students in my old town)
I have worked in both the private and public sector, and it is not out of the ordinary to need to re-start a search. Those who dedicated their time on the committee should not feel as if it was a waste of time, rather it was an opportunity to really look into what we need as a district.
Geez...just catching up on the comments here based on what I've read on Megan's FaceBook page.
ReplyDeleteFirst off, teachers do not run the school district and they do not make hiring decisions. Teachers are employees, not employers. The taxpayers are the employers and they are represented by the school board members they elect. Any teacher who thinks it is their right to hire and fire seriously misunderstands their job.
Second, the board had every right to vote as they did. The school board is not a rubber stamp for the Superintendent or anyone else. We elected thoughtful, smart board members (ALL of them) to make insightful decisions based on criteria much wider and deeper than those considered by teachers or students. Past boards largely served a ceremonial role who did rubber stamp the superintendent and that is what got us to this state of mediocrity known as ORCSD. We need a board, a superintendent and administrators who can accelerate ORCSD into the 21st century.
Finally, looking over the selection criteria, I am amazed that a) widely used targeted selection methods that measure candidate behavioral and competency attributes were not used and b) none of the criteria listed 'Must be a change agent'. In a rapidly changing society, anyone who is NOT a change agent are simply caretakers of the status quo and as such allow school(s) stay the same as society rockets past them. That's also known as relative decline.
Having been in a position to hire scores and scores of people in the private sector, there is absolutely nothing wrong in starting the hiring process anew if none of the current crop of candidates do not meet the needs of the organization. Restarting the hiring process is exactly what should happen, and I applaud the board for making a difficult decision.
I heard one of the candidates talk about how Oyster River always does whats "best for kids". Can someone please tell me how turning away 2 qualifed candidates that had the full support of the search committee is "best for kids"? Take a look around, a lot of schools can't even find qualified candidates for their principal roles. Good luck finding a principal or new super next year. The board by rejecting the super's recomendation and the super for not nominating the search committees other pick, have now frighthen away any potential candidates. I also heard a board member say that they want Oyster River to be the best high school in the country. The best high schools in the country don’t pull this type of nonsense.
ReplyDeleteIt is sad to read this blog today. Those who write in such an attacking manner must themselves be guilty of what they say about board. What person in their right mind would volunteer to give up many, many hours to purposely hurt the school system? Think about it. What could they possibly gain? What would be the motive? Regardless of your opinion of the vote anyone of them made last night, they all cast their vote in good conscious. Not to be mean or hurtful to anyone.
ReplyDeleteIn answer to "what's best for the kids." Would it have been best for the kids to rubber stamp the superintendent's choice when he will be leaving in a year? Is that what is best for the kids? What if the superintendent had offered both names - then that perhaps would have been best for the kids.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteForgot to mention: Since the vote last night was made in a legal, non-public session and dealt with personnel issues, we should not expect board members to explain what went on. Board members are obligated to NOT divulge personnel matters that are made in a legal, non-public session. I would hope board members would honor their responsibility to keep personnel matters confidential.
ReplyDeleteI do not live or teach in your district but I am a high school teacher. I do not know the candidates but I can tell you that, after speaking with a friend who is also a high school teacher in a different school than me, this decision is getting "water cooler" time. The consensus of my peers and my friend's peers is that we would never, ever work in such a dysfunctional environment. I feel you not only lost faith within your own district, you are losing faith with other districts too. I feel horrible for the students; they deserve better.
ReplyDeleteUm...I am confused. Where did any of the 4 SB members who voted say that they did not like the candidates? All that I have heard and read was that it was a budgetary issue, see Jenna Robert's post and Megan's facebook posting.
ReplyDeletePlease let me know if you heard differently, but in the last batch of posts on this blog, they indicate that the candidates were not selected for their abilities and backgrounds, not for the budget reasons that Megan and Jenna refer to.
So which is it? I believe the answer to that question would sway how people are addressing the issue at hand.
Moreover, Perhaps the 4 who voted would like to speak up in a public forum and give the answers that we are all looking for. They seem to have a plan, I for one, would like to know what it is.
Howard's plan was to have a principal. What is theirs?
This district needs to get off their high horses and stop thinking they are better then everyone else. What this board is looking for who knows, But they need to realize that this is not some Ivy league prep school district.
ReplyDeleteI would hope this board realizes that the talk at education meetings around the state is to stay away from the Oyster River mess because it's not worth dealing with. Guess what ? It just got worse
ReplyDeleteProvide this blog with the name of any teacher wouldn't want to come here for the lucrative contract just negotiated with and approved by the board so many now criticize. What do they say about wanting cake and eating it, too?
ReplyDeleteHow many candidates for principal were there? 44? I'd say lots of people want to come here! Maybe if people would stop talking around the "water cooler" it would be much healthier. Rumors...
ReplyDeleteI find it interesting that since the requirement to sign a name has been lifted, it seems easier to attack. I have many friends statewide who work in other districts, our reputation as a strong district is secure. In fact, I would argue the strength of this very difficult decision will only work to improve our reputation in the long run.
ReplyDeleteThings have to get worse before they get better, true progress and change is hard. Isn't that what the kids are being taught?
The board did NOT reject both candidates. Howard Colter did not nominate the second candidate.
ReplyDeleteIt does seem strange that out of 44 applicants, it would come down to two candidates who have no experience as a principal. It seems that with the issues our district is facing, a person with experience as a principal would be very important.
Why have two final candidates if both were not offered the opportunity of a vote by the board?
ReplyDeleteI don't get it.
I trust that the committee did due dilegence.
ReplyDeleteThey brought forth two candidates, and for whatever reason the board was only allowed the choice of one. Howard has some explaining to do.
How do you know the Board was allowed to look at only two candidates? Were you in the board room? Maybe they talked about both. Why is everyone making these ridiculous assumptions? basically just to impugn other people's reputations, it seems.
ReplyDeleteHoward is NOT obligated to put forth the second candidate if he doesn't feel he would be a good fit for the district. That is HIS right and obligation as an administrator.
ReplyDeleteIn response to the post of 6:44. If Howard has a RIGHT and obligation, don't the school board members also have a right and obligation to vote for wheom they feel would be a good fit for the district? Why is it ok for Howard but the board is being criticized? Hmmm....
ReplyDeleteShouldn't the board at least be able to vote on the other candidate? I am hearing that perhaps the outcome would have been different if this were the case. We are making a lot of assumptions about the board. Trust me, there is more to this story than appears.
ReplyDeleteHoward Colter works for the board, not the reverse. The committee (of which Howard was a member) submitted the names of two candidates. The board should have had the opportunity to vote on both candidates. They did not. Colter is the one who needs to explain. If he didn't think that the second candidate was a good fit for the district, then why did he bring this person forward as a finalist? He ultimately controlled the process.
ReplyDeleteOK...there is some confusion as to why the board only looked at two candidates. If you read the original post, it spells this out very nicely about the selection process. Last night was the board interviews with the two finalists. The board (other than the three that were in the selection committee) does not choose who the finalists are nor do they gather as a board to interview anyone else but the finalists.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the superintendent nominates the candidate (out of the two) for the board to vote on. The board does not select and/or vote for the candidate they feel would be the best.
Again, why Howard didn't bring forth the second candidate after all the hard work of the selection committee I cannot answer. I also cannot answer or assume why the board voted the way they did. In the end, they deserve our respect. We can disagree, sure, but until we all hear the reasoning, let's not go down a disrespectful and spiteful path.
If there is more to the story than there appears, let's stop praising the Board for transparency. It seems some are in "the know" and some are not.
ReplyDeleteThe point about the hypocrasy in criticizing the board and not criticizing Howard for doing their "obligation", I was trying to make exactly that point, except to point out the hypocrasy of criticizing Howard but praising the Board.
But to complicate things, as I understand it, the Board should have a very good reason to reject a candidate that is brought forth by the superintendent and the committee. For all those that think the teachers should not be the one choosing the Principal, who they would essentially work for, shouldn't the Superintendent be the one to have the say? Since the Principal will essentially work for him??
I agree with Sara- has it been established that the Board rejected Justin because he wasn't qualified?
I think (please correct me if I am wrong), but the committee presents its first choice to Howard and if he approves, he presents that candidate to the school board. He does not choose from the two on his own.
ReplyDeleteIf the board is being held to such a scrutiny, perhaps all members of the selection committee should explain for whom they voted and their reasons why. Transparency? Now I wonder if the choice of the individual selection committee members was truly heard.
ReplyDelete"Provide this blog with the name of any teacher wouldn't want to come here for the lucrative contract just negotiated with and approved by the board so many now criticize. What do they say about wanting cake and eating it, too?"
ReplyDeleteAs a veteran teacher (who has numerous nominations for "Teacher of the Year") I can tell you that I would never take a job in such a hostile community regardless of the "lucrative contract". You are losing good people you haven't even met!
What is the hostility the veteran teacher who has numerous nominations for "Teacher of the Year" speaks of? I don't get it! The only hostility appears to be on the part of teachers angry they don't get their way and present their demands via letters to the school board at meetings. WHO are the good people being lost in Oyster River? How many teachers leave a year and how many applicants are there for their jobs? Come on!
ReplyDeleteUm, your sarcastic inclusion of 'teacher of the year' in your first sentence is hostile, as is your suggestion that teachers' complaints about the vote last night is based on them 'not getting their way.' Also hostile (violent, actually) is the implication that it is illegitimate for teachers to represent themselves ("demands," even!) at school board meetings. 3 for 3 in one paragraph, well done.
ReplyDeleteI think Howard was smart enough to figure out that this board was not going to nominate anyone so why waste his time and be out till 11:pm again talking with a group of people that just doesn't get it. They can't even run a school board meeting let alone select someone for the job.
ReplyDeleteThe comments of some of the bloggers show the hostility on the part of some of our community members towards educators. We do not present lists of demands at board meetings. My recollection of the past few meetings are of a dysfunctional, inexperienced board with some members pushing their own agendas. It's usually the teachers and administrators who must endure micro-managing by a board without one member who has experience in education. The problem is that the board does not know what its role is supposed to be. You hire a superintendent to make educational decisions. This outrage over Superintendent Colter's refusal to put forth his "runner-up" is a sham. No candidate who was nominated by him would have been voted in. It's all politics. The welfare of the students is not considered as long as certain board members can score points. The voters better get the message before the next school board election.
ReplyDeleteFYI: OR teachers are not the highest paid teachers in the state.
Maybe the OR teachers are not the highest paid in the state, but Howard Colter is at or near the top for superintendents. And he negotiated a three year contract for himself. Hopefully the board won't make that mistake again.
ReplyDeleteIt should be remembered that both sides have the right to make the choices that they deem is best. It is not up to us, as outsiders, to judge them without knowing the details. The Board decided that Mr. Campbell was not a choice they approved of and thus voted the way they did. They must have their reasons and are certainly entilted to them.
ReplyDeleteI also believe, we need to remember that Mr. Colter had his reasons on why he did not nominate Mr. Thompson. It could be as simple as Mr. Thompson informing Mr. Colter that he would not be comfortable being the second choice and if that ended up being the case he, Mr. Thompson, would rather not be nominated at all.
I just hope that both sides made their choices based on what was best for the community.
"Not the highest paid teachers in the state": Technically correct, but only by a hair. Check out the facts and data at the link below, slide 12. The data is a bit dated (2007), but it would be hard to imagine there would have been much change in the intervening years, given the number of districts where pay increases have been minimal through the recession.
ReplyDeleteThe claim that nobody wants to work in ORCSD is complete nonsense that is refuted by the facts. 44 applications were received for the Principal position and when a teacher opening occurs, there are tons of applicants. Besides, many applicants would be EXCITED to work in a district that is attempting to rethink education so it matches the needs of the 21st century. And, those are exactly the kinds of applicants we should attract.
We would not want to attract applicants who are afraid of change, are in love with old curriculum and are guardians of the status quo. Fortunately, those candidates would be the least likely to apply to ORCSD, and that's a very good thing.
If turnover is so extremely high in ORCSD, why is the district currently offering retirement incentives?
Outrageous claims and nonsense opinions don't count. Facts and data do count. Adults should make decisions based on facts and data, not wild, unsubstantiated claims.
The thought that some of these wild, unsubstantiated claims come from self-declared teachers scares me. If teachers are making such statements on this blog, what happens in the classroom?
The link for the ORCSD teacher salary data is here(data sources are noted on slide 4):
http://www.ci.durham.nh.us/generalpdfs/2007/Tri-Town%20ORCSD%20Budget%20Committee%20Report.pdf
If it's all about money and the purpose of the rejection of Mr. Campbell was to save $150,000, then why be so deceitful as to put the committee and the candidates through this charade?
ReplyDeleteJust read the comment about Colter's pay. When the Tri-Town Committee did its work in 2007, Howard was either the second or third highest paid superintendent in the state. I remember it to be second highest, but I'd need to go dig up all the data again to be absolutely sure, and that's just not worth the effort.
ReplyDeleteDon't get me wrong--if our superintendent were a superstar hell bent on bringing ORCSD back to the very top of the heap in educational performance he'd be worth every penny. Howard is not that guy.
When I used to attend every single school board meeting, requests from the board for information were met with Howard's two most common phrases: "That's hard", or "We don't have the time".
That's right, Howard, we are paying you the second highest salary in the state to do only the 'easy' things and to completely avoid doing the 'hard' things.
If this guy worked for me, he would have had a "come to Jesus meeting" and if dramatic change was not demonstrated within a week or two he'd be shown the door. I never hired or tolerated hires who deemed work responsibilities 'too hard'.
Hey Seth, why did you delete my comment about teacher pay and the work of the Tri-Town Committee?????
ReplyDeleteI wish that Jerry was on the school board right now.
ReplyDeleteIt blows my mind that teachers feel the only people they can work with is other 'educators'. Please, stay working as a teacher, you will never make it in the private sector where you can't pick who you want to work with, who's going to be your boss, get paid the best in the state even though you're not producing the best product in the state, NOR will you have benefits and pay for the rest of your life.
ReplyDeleteStay teaching, because you have no idea how easy you have it...oh yeah, you can't get fired either. Right, it's tough to work 9 months of the year under those conditions.
Seriously, it's hard to be you.
Re. OR Teacher Salaries
ReplyDelete2010-11 Average Salary Data for New Hampshire:
http://tinyurl.com/42h6hoc
(ORCSD is 12th overall, 27th for starting pay, and 2nd for districts >100 teachers)
Jerry's comments just serve to support my contention that the voting was politically motivated. You're making the candidates and committee pay for your opinions on the superintendent. This is supposed to be about the principal we need to hire, not a referendum on Mr. Colter.
ReplyDeleteThis decision by the four school board members greatly adds to my concern about the current board’s agenda. My husband, John Collins, pointed out in his school board campaign the need to bridge the gap between the school board and administrators. This decision does the opposite; it divides the district and continues to show a lack of respect for teachers and administrators. The search committee and the Superintendent put forth a strong candidate that they were all very excited about. The Board would need to have a very good reason to vote this person down. My fear is that the real reason Justin Campbell was voted down is that this is the beginning of a push to change the district philosophy. There has been speculation that the HS Principal search was being undermined. The Board had an agenda item to discuss school board policy for administrative hiring procedures, then with no explanation, pulled the item from the agenda. There was no public explanation of why this item was on the agenda or why it was pulled from the agenda. But clearly someone had some issue with the hiring process and many speculated that it may be related to an attempt to derail the HS Principal hiring. I understand that some wish to let the new Superintendent hire the new Principal. But why would this be so important if we are planning to hire a Superintendent who shares the Philosophy that the district has employed since its inception? You’d assume that if we hire a well-qualified Principal who shares the philosophy, then the new Superintendent, who would also share the philosophy, would approve of him/her. My concern is that there will be a push by certain Board members to hire a Superintendent with a new philosophy. Personally, I am happy with our district’s philosophy and don’t want to see it change. The district is built on it. The more I learn of it, the more I see its merit. My three step-children have gone through the district and through the years, they always enjoyed school. The teachers and the district place value on the student as an individual and see the child as a whole person. We are engagement driven. I don’t want to see a shift to a more achievement/assessment driven district. I want to live in a district where the children are instilled with a love of learning. The district may need some tweaking, but clearly the teachers and administrators are doing something right when the students are so engaged and involved that one of their own decides to run for school board when he sees the school threatened.
ReplyDeleteI wrote this too harshly on Megan’s FB page, but I do want to say it again here in a slightly different way. People move to this district because of the schools. It is upsetting to me that these same people then seem to want to change them. Of course there is always room for improvement and no one is threatened by that. But if you are unhappy with something as integral as the district philosophy, or what you are really looking for are broad, sweeping changes, then maybe you should reconsider whether this is the district for you. There are many achievement/AP driven districts out there. I am very concerned that these changes will take away the subtleties that make this district what it is. I hope I’m wrong about all this, but no matter what reasons are formally given by the Board for this decision, only time will really tell. Thanks for reading.
Times change. We can love tradition all we want but it does our children a disservice if it does not prepare them for the realities of life after ORSD. Society is changing at a pace unseen before, can't cling to status quo.
ReplyDeleteBesides, ORSD used to have a stellar reputation of academic achievement. The philosphy has not been set in stone, it has not been forever the same.
It would appear that this community needs to get off of their almighty horse and remember what is important. Oyster River, like all districts in this nation, need to focus on the continued service of their STUDENTS. We are a COMMUNITY and should start acting like one. All of the facts have not been made public, so there is no point in arguing. There has been too much talk of blame and money and it all makes me sick. If everyone continues with their role, then we can move forward productively. This district is still top notch because of our supportive parents, dedicated teachers and hardworking students.
ReplyDeletep.s. Declaring that OR teachers have the highest salaries cannot be declared solely by average salary. This simply shows that the OR staff is very experienced and therefore on the higher end of the salary scale.
Is there any new news? Have there been any official statements? I certainly hope we don't have to wait until the 27th to hear more details.
ReplyDeleteRob--Thanks for the data. I was too lazy to look it all up again. ORCSD: 2nd highest teacher salaries for districts of similar size (over 100 teachers).
ReplyDeleteAnonymous at 10:28 PM--I have no idea how you can interpret my comments about Coulter as proof that the current board vote was politically motivated. That is quite an incredible leap in logic that I cannot follow.
My comments about Coulter were, simply, comments made by me about Coulter based on my attendance at school board meetings a few years ago when NONE (yes NONE) of the current board members were on the school board. How anyone can make the jump in logic from a past school board to the present school board and claim the vote was political completely escapes me (other than the superintendent remains the same while all the other faces are different).
Grades on that comment: Logic: F. Common Sense: F. Relevance: F. Absurdity: A.
Jerry, someone at 10:13 said you should be on school board! It's not all negative comments :)
ReplyDeleteAdvice to Seth: Turn off the ability for Anonymous to post. The anonymous posts are some of the most absurd stuff, often posted by people self-described as 'from outside the district'.
ReplyDeleteIt is extremely easy to say ridiculous stuff anonymously. It takes guts (and requires facts and data) to post stuff under your real name.
ChrisAnn: I worked very hard, behind the scenes over the past several years (with many, many other great people) to get the current board elected. I am extremely happy with the results and am extremely grateful to the current board members who donate their precious time to serve.
ReplyDeleteI support the board members who voted on both sides of this issue because I know most of them personally and believe them ALL to be dedicated public servants who want the best for our district and our kids.
In my view, the board vote was a disagreement among friends and the outcome will better serve the district in the long run.
I do not support those who make ridiculous, unfounded claims about ORCSD. I am particularly scared by the self-proclaimed 'anonymous' teachers who posted wild accusations not based in fact or data. If they are truly teachers, I have great difficulty that they are in classrooms teaching our kids.
Once again, I've found it tough to sit back and read this blog without sharing an opinion.
ReplyDeleteIt's easy to point blame, but when it comes down to it the school board was well within their rights to vote against Colter's selection. They certainly have that right.
It's also easy to point blame on the selection committee - a group of individuals supposedly chosen by Colter. I understand that Colter doesn't have the greatest reputation on this blog, but he chose a committee of individuals who are advocating for this school - to help ORHS become the best it can be. Although parents and students could have been more involved, I don't feel that the process is relevant at this point. The problem that we're facing is that an "illegitimate" committee selected two very legitimate candidates, both of whom were rejected in one way or another. It's going to be tough - not impossible - to find candidates of equal standing in the future after this little fiasco. As I stated earlier, I was impressed by both candidates. That said, many of the individuals who were involved in this process backed Mr. Campbell and felt that he was the best option for this school.
I believe that it's for a simple reason that Mr. Colter did not allow the board to vote on Mr. Thompson. Clearly Colter felt that Campbell was the very best principal that he could nominate, and at a competitive school like Oyster River, we should not settle for anything less. It's simple - the faculty, the students and the committee felt strongly that Mr. Campbell was perfectly suited for the job. Had parents chosen to attend the public tea event, they would have been able to decide for themselves. Had community members felt excluded, they could have taken advantage of this resource just as easily. Why the board did not agree with this decision is beyond me.
For the decision to be made for financial reasons is absolute ludicrous, and the idea that it was made due to a dislike for the superintendent is even more upsetting. This school, the future and current students and teachers of this school deserve better treatment.
The teachers approved this decision because they were told to choose a candidate and they utilized their ability to meet with and speak with the candidates. The faculty, as well as students, are well within their right to be upset that this decision didn't "go our way" because we were educated on the matter, unlike many of the previous commenters.
Perhaps the most upsetting part of this whole ordeal is the fact that three of the four "no" votes came from our newly elected representatives. The individuals who were elected to bring change to an ineffective board have already set a negative direction for the next few years. I personally was able to interview Jim Kach for an article in the Mouth of the River, who agreed with me four days before the vote that an interim principal was not the right choice for Oyster River. Although I have a tremendous amount of respect for him, he let me down. He told me that he viewed the biggest problem with the current school district to be communication. That has proven itself to be true, as there must be some sort of disconnect between the individuals who were truly educated about and will be affected most by this selection and those who get to make the decision.
Ben Belanger, Senior
benbelanger5@comcast.net
Below are some comments on the New Hampshire RSAs regarding the expected 'transparency' mentioned by some posters on this blog regarding this issue:
ReplyDeleteI think folks are being overly optimistic on what will be announced or published over the next few days. I've served on the Durham Zoning Board for over 5 years and as a result am very familiar with Chapter 91-A of New Hampshire's RSA's, which governs members of public boards and committees.
Chapter 91-A:3 II(b) clearly exempts discussions of hiring from public disclosure. The exact wording on the exemption is "(b)The hiring of any person as a public employee".
Section 91-A:2 III goes on to state that minutes of meetings in nonpublic session shall be kept...and shall be available within 72 hours of the meeting.
My recollection from training workshops is that the minutes for nonpublic session that are released to the public are vague and provide no detail. Those minutes basically record the vote on going into nonpublic session, that the meeting was held, and the meeting times related to the session. No detail can be provided due to confidentiality.
These are facts. Sorry, they are actually New Hampshire law, so they probably don't matter nearly as much as anonymous opinion.
Never mind. Sorry for the intrusion.
Once again, I've found it tough to sit back and read this blog without sharing an opinion.
ReplyDeleteIt's easy to point blame, but when it comes down to it the school board was well within their rights to vote against Colter's selection. They certainly have that right.
It's also easy to point blame on the selection committee - a group of individuals supposedly chosen by Colter. I understand that Colter doesn't have the greatest reputation on this blog, but he chose a committee of individuals who are advocating for this school - to help ORHS become the best it can be. Although parents and students could have been more involved, I don't feel that the process is relevant at this point. The problem that we're facing is that an "illegitimate" committee selected two very legitimate candidates, both of whom were rejected in one way or another. It's going to be tough - not impossible - to find candidates of equal standing in the future after this little fiasco. As I stated earlier, I was impressed by both candidates. That said, many of the individuals who were involved in this process backed Mr. Campbell and felt that he was the best option for this school.
I believe that it's for a simple reason that Mr. Colter did not allow the board to vote on Mr. Thompson. Clearly Colter felt that Campbell was the very best principal that he could nominate, and at a competitive school like Oyster River, we should not settle for anything less. It's simple - the faculty, the students and the committee felt strongly that Mr. Campbell was perfectly suited for the job. Had parents chosen to attend the public tea event, they would have been able to decide for themselves. Had community members felt excluded, they could have taken advantage of this resource just as easily. Why the board did not agree with this decision is beyond me.
For the decision to be made for financial reasons is absolute ludicrous, and the idea that it was made due to a dislike for the superintendent is even more upsetting. This school, the future and current students and teachers of this school deserve better treatment.
The teachers approved this decision because they were told to choose a candidate and they utilized their ability to meet with and speak with the candidates. The faculty, as well as students, are well within their right to be upset that this decision didn't "go our way" because we were educated on the matter, unlike many of the previous commenters.
Perhaps the most upsetting part of this whole ordeal is the fact that three of the four "no" votes came from our newly elected representatives. The individuals who were elected to bring change to an ineffective board have already set a negative direction for the next few years. I personally was able to interview Jim Kach for an article in the Mouth of the River, who agreed with me four days before the vote that an interim principal was not the right choice for Oyster River. Although I have a tremendous amount of respect for him, he let me down. He told me that he viewed the biggest problem with the current school district to be communication. That has proven itself to be true, as there must be some sort of disconnect between the individuals who were truly educated about and will be affected most by this selection and those who get to make the decision.
Ben Belanger, Senior
benbelanger5@comcast.net
I am just reading the add on piece. No wonder we have frustration. Never was the high school community (or anyone else) asked what they want from a new high school leader. There were no student focus groups, surveys or public conversations.
ReplyDeleteOur advertising in newspapers consisted of Fosters. Are you for real? We live 1 hour drive from Boston and no one thought it was a good idea to advertise in the Globe paper or online? WHAT?
I hope that there is at least a lesson learned here. Allowing an outgoing Board to allow an outgoing Super to hire a key admin is a recipe for disaster. Example A
Where is the do-over button?
There is far more that unites this community than divides us. It is time strong leadership, dedicated to this community, to advocate for our kids first and foremost.
Does the District philosophy work for all kids? Ask around, maybe it does not. It is time for a conversation--where do we all agree, where do we disagree, can we find middle ground?
I do not appreciate being told to get out of town if I do not like the way the District is being led. This is NOT a way to BUILD BRIDGES! I think the voters were clear on that one. This is far more dividing than anything I have read on this blog.
I am hopeful that most people want to be inclusive of ideas that may help there kids, not toss them aside if they want something different for their kids. AP is not exactly outrageous or out of the ordinary. Some kids want it and others do not. Why should one person decide what opportunities out kids can have?
After hearing about the events of the last few days regarding the principal search, once again I am deeply disheartened by the blatant disregard for creating a healthy, harmonious work environment between administration and faculty within the school district. In my opinion, this school board needs to take a hike. This board appears to be hell-bent on creating a hostile work environment at ORHS. I've been a manager all my professional life and know the value of a healthy faculty/administration relationship. If we're at the point where we've brought in candidates for a selection process, full-knowing that they are qualified, we need to treat them with the respect they deserve and not play politics. It's disgraceful.
ReplyDeleteBryan Belanger Sr.
Lee, NH
Once again, I've found it tough to sit back and read this blog without sharing an opinion.
ReplyDeleteIt's easy to point blame, but when it comes down to it the school board was well within their rights to vote against Colter's selection. They certainly have that right.
It's also easy to point blame on the selection committee - a group of individuals supposedly chosen by Colter. I understand that Colter doesn't have the greatest reputation on this blog, but he chose a committee of individuals who are advocating for this school - to help ORHS become the best it can be. Although parents and students could have been more involved, I don't feel that the process is relevant at this point. The problem that we're facing is that an "illegitimate" committee selected two very legitimate candidates, both of whom were rejected in one way or another. It's going to be tough - not impossible - to find candidates of equal standing in the future after this little fiasco. As I stated earlier, I was impressed by both candidates. That said, many of the individuals who were involved in this process backed Mr. Campbell and felt that he was the best option for this school.
I believe that it's for a simple reason that Mr. Colter did not allow the board to vote on Mr. Thompson. Clearly Colter felt that Campbell was the very best principal that he could nominate, and at a competitive school like Oyster River, we should not settle for anything less. It's simple - the faculty, the students and the committee felt strongly that Mr. Campbell was perfectly suited for the job. Had parents chosen to attend the public tea event, they would have been able to decide for themselves. Had community members felt excluded, they could have taken advantage of this resource just as easily. Why the board did not agree with this decision is beyond me.
(continued)
(continued)
ReplyDeleteFor the decision to be made for financial reasons is absolute ludicrous, and the idea that it was made due to a dislike for the superintendent is even more upsetting. This school, the future and current students and teachers of this school deserve better treatment.
The teachers approved this decision because they were told to choose a candidate and they utilized their ability to meet with and speak with the candidates. The faculty, as well as students, is well within their right to be upset that this decision didn't "go our way" because we were educated on the matter, unlike many of the previous commenters.
Perhaps the most upsetting part of this whole ordeal is the fact that three of the four "no" votes came from our newly elected representatives. The individuals who were elected to bring change to an ineffective board have already set a negative direction for the next few years. I personally was able to interview Jim Kach for an article in the Mouth of the River, who agreed with me four days before the vote that an interim principal was not the right choice for Oyster River. Although I have a tremendous amount of respect for him, he let me down. He told me that he viewed the biggest problem with the current school district to be communication. That has proven itself to be true, as there must be some sort of disconnect between the individuals who were truly educated about and will be affected most by this selection and those who get to make the decision.
Ben Belanger, Senior
benbelanger5@comcast.net
Bryan Belanger Sr.:
ReplyDelete"I've been a manager all my professional life and know the value of a healthy faculty."
Do a LinkedIn search...the quote "manager all my professional life" is in school districts. ONLY. No private sector experience.
Now don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with being a school district manager for your whole professional life. The problem is FULL DISCLOSURE. That means, who you are and what you do. If you don't do full disclosure, google will discover you every time.
Bryan (and others) - why do you treat it as given that the candidates were qualified to take on the responsibilities of ORHS principal? In my opinion, neither had sufficient experience to take on the role at this point in their careers. Being an experienced manager, you are aware of the risks of promoting somebody too soon to a position beyond their experience and capabilities.
ReplyDeleteRegardless, there are a lot of unanswered questions and rampant speculation. Nobody in this thread was present for the discussions that took place amongst the board that resulted in a 3-4 vote. The fact that it was not a 7-0 vote tells me that all this accusation of a politically motivated board is just more hot air and pre-existing bias by people more interested in grinding their own ax than moving forward with healing the rift between the board/administration and the faculty that has formed over the past 9 years.
The Bryan Belanger you found on LinkedIn is in fact his son and my older brother, Bryan Belanger Jr. who is currently an Assistant Principal at the Seabrook Middle School, although I do not believe that this is relevant information whatsoever and quite frankly doesn't deserve a response. Do not make assumptions when your research is inadequate. My father has managed businesses throughout New England for his whole life and has never worked for a school district.
ReplyDeleteBen--
ReplyDeleteSorry for the mistake. And you are correct that this may not be relevant to the discussion. I apologize.
My only point is that folks on this blog should be be completely transparent as to their background and interests.
While I may not agree with you, I certainly highly regard your opinions and most importantly, appreciate your effort to be involved and stay involved.
I am still very interested in the background of Bryan Sr. who posted the earlier comment.
As for my background, just google my name. There are no others on the face of this planet who share the same name.
Ben,
ReplyDeletePlease don't assume parents did not attend the Principal Tea, I was there as were MANY others. Especially given only a few days notice. Do you have kids? Because mine are very involved in activities and my family had to do some juggling to get me to the tea!!
Personally, I did not see some things I was looking for in my kids future high school principal. I also felt that having a meet & greet AFTER a candidate forum would have given me more insight as I recieved no information from the search committee.
Think about it, we walked into a room with a paragraph about the person--not even a full cv/resume. And we had a conversation. If there had been a question/answer period prior to being able to ask specific questions, maybe folks would have felt better informed to make decisions. Personally I like to get information before I make decisions.
When my input was asked by the school board members I have contact with, I gave them an honest reply "I don't know. I don't feel I know enough about them and they dont' appear to be experienced specifically for principal". I was definately expecting someone with principal experience already as I think we have enough to do within our district to take someone that needs some learning curve time.
Every comment from an OR student that I have read on this blog (including archives) has been strongly supportive and defensive of the teachers and schools. We keep talking about how we are here for the students, so why aren't we listening to them?
ReplyDeleteWell said Laura. Well said!
ReplyDeleteI told myself I wouldn't look at this blog again, never mind post again - but it's kind of like driving past a car accident, isn't it?
ReplyDeleteA few follow-ups to previously stated facts. According to data from the NH Department of Education (http://www.education.nh.gov/data if you want to check it out) the annual salary for superintendents varies widely across the state. Dr. Colter is definitely not in the top 3. His salary of $131,435 is below at least six other superintendents in the state. However, he does have 28 years of experience as superintendent. The other statistic thrown around regards my ample salary. I think the most accurate way to see a comparison is to look at the data regarding minimum starting teacher salary - which places Oyster River 27th in the state.
Just clarifying some facts. Another issue worth noting is that there isn't some bottomless pit of well-qualified candidates willing to be administrators anymore. Colter and I were just discussing how years ago, districts would get hundreds of applicants for administrative jobs - now we're lucky to get in the double digits.
I wish you all well as we continue through this together!
-- Judy Kucera
Thank you for posting the salary information. However, if you look at the Foster's article dated July 31, 2008, Howard Colter's salary was listed as $142,347.78. And that was three years ago. Has he taken a pay cut in the last three years?http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080731/GJNEWS_01/481458050/0/FOSTERS01
ReplyDeleteListen to the students or obey the students?
ReplyDeleteListen to the teachers or obey the teachers?
They are not the only one's whose opinions matter. Otherwise my teenager can make all the life decisions he wants because we'd better trust & listen to him. Otherwise, when we feel my son is not getting what he needs from his teacher, we should just let the teacher figure it out for us.
Really? So parents you just got a break. You don't have to worry about anything. The teachers and the students know everything. Us parents have it on easy street now. We just need to get ourselves to work and write those checks.
Lunacy.
Not to question the validity of Foster's facts, but the data I referred to from the state gave Colter's salary as 126,990 in 2008. Anyway.
ReplyDeleteThe Foster's article included "gross wages, benefits and overtime" which is the actual total cost to the district. The state table only includes salary information.
ReplyDeleteas a student i can tell its quite obvious that the school board has never cared about us kids. all they care about is money.
ReplyDeleteThe board's primary job is to "care about money". The same money that pays for you to attend school, pays the teachers to work here, pays for the buses to run, pays for the lights to turn on, pays for everything that makes your time at Oyster River possible.
ReplyDeleteAre you saying we should close Oyster River for the students' benefit?
i'm saying pretty much every student in the school despises the school board. john collins was our last hope for any kind of voice
ReplyDeleteThat's unexpected, as I would have thought the students would pin their hopes on Chandler Hull. But family ties should come first.
ReplyDeleteKid you are so missinformed it's not funny. Past board's, including John's, have created this fiscal nightmare that now is FINALLY being handled. Or at least some attempt at being handled. Eventually the money train has to stop.
ReplyDeleteYou can believe you are 'entitled' to whatever you want, bottom line is it has to be PAID FOR.
To the student who just posted anonymously, many of the board members have children who are students in the district, and care very deeply about more than money. Please let's remember that we still don't know what happened in the nonpublic session. I look forward to getting more information.
ReplyDelete"Kid you are so missinformed it's not funny."
ReplyDeletedon't refer to him as "kid" he deserves more respect than that.
Don't just expect this corruption on the school board to go unnoticed by us students. It's not like we are completely oblivious to the school boards actions. We know that if it was up to the board our school would be a terrible place, without an art department and with weighted grades.
It's obvious the school board is a group of elitist parents whose kids are prodigies. Watch out, the vast majority of students at the school are just average/below average students. We realize that you don't care about us, but this is just ridiculous. Don't be surprised if us students take action on this.
I had to remove the post made by "2009 Graduate" as it divulged personnel information and board/administration discussions that has not been made public.
ReplyDeleteI hope the poster will consider posting an edited version of their original message with privileged information removed.
Regards,
Brian Turnbull
This current board is the worse board I've seen in this district in 25 years of living here in Durham. They had no intention of hiring before the meeting took place the other night and if they deny that they are liars! They will get blasted at tonights meeting.
ReplyDeleteThe only information I can imagine that would be privileged is that the School Board doesn’t want to hire a principal...which is a commonly known fact.
ReplyDeleteI am just very disappointed in a school board that is so concerned with budget cuts as opposed to the quality of the students education and the administrator hired to run our school. When you believe that the most important aspect to a principle should be Academic Excellence instead of, oh I don’t know, well being of each individual student then you obviously do not have children, or I feel really bad for your micromanaged “super” kid.
As I mentioned initially, many of the people who voted these members in did so to lower their own Property Taxes, and as I said initially, Get. Over. It. You knew it was going to be expensive when you moved here, if you don't want to pay the taxes, move and send your children to a cheaper school.
Do not punish the students and deny them a HIGHLY qualified candidate just because you don't want to pay.
And for the excuse that the Committee wasn't following certain criteria, this was addressed in a public school board meeting where every member but ONE voted that it was null and the Committee was legal.
I would also like to mention that the Salary of the Teachers and of Mr. Colter should really not be an issue here as that has nothing to do with the fact that the school board rejected a highly qualified, well liked candidate.
For the person who mentioned we had 44 applications and that this was "good"...when we hired Laura Rogers we had over a hundred applications to come work in this school district.
Those who are saying, "Why wasn't the school board offered a second option?" Don’t fool yourselves. If a highly qualified man such as Mr. Campbell was "not good enough" there is no way the other candidate would have been.
The last school board scared off a Principal that was loved by all, highly qualified, and who was dedicated to each and every student in this school. I feel sorry for the future Oyster River students who will not be blessed enough to experience Mrs. Rogers. This current board was voted in to correct mistakes that were made in the past 3 years, to improve the students, faculty and communities relationship with them. Instead they have alienated themselves. All I can say is good luck getting out of this one guys.
For the anonymous poster who said that The PARENTS opinion should matter more then the students or teachers...get over yourself. I forgot that the PARENTS go to school and that the PARENTS are directly influenced by the decisions a principal would make. Oh wait no. DO not devaluate teachers and students and make this about the parents, this decision DIRECTLY affects students and teachers. If you want to be so super involved with your child’s education and if they aren’t being challenged enough and you have to get involved, home school them. This is public school. They aren’t there to make sure Jimmy gets into Harvard, they are there to make sure each individual student is doing the best they can. What matters is a principal who understands this and it isn’t all about the AP classes, its about the quality of education EACH student is getting.
ReplyDeleteI don't get it. Why wouldn't anyone want academic excellence? Why should students be okay with settling for a sub-par education? Why should their parents, who foot the bill? I used to think some folks in this town just rested on the district's laurels. After reading the comments here, and in particular, ones made by students, I am amazed that they are actually promoting mediocrity. Is this really what we want? Is this the overall culture at the high school?? I am so, so disappointed.
ReplyDeleteSeth and other members questioning why Mr. Colter did not just present the other canidate-please look into the law regarding this. That is not how it works.
ReplyDeletewell said 2009 Graduate.... Bravo
ReplyDelete"After reading the comments here, and in particular, ones made by students, I am amazed that they are actually promoting mediocrity. Is this really what we want? Is this the overall culture at the high school?? "
ReplyDeleteI have worked in three of four schools in my time and NOTHING compares to the hard work that the students put into their work.. The only issue I see here is that people have a problem with students actually having a voice...
It is not too late! The board could stil approach Dr. Tim Richard http://www.timrichard.net He can serve as a Principal or a Superintendent. They guy is a young, energetic, school reformer who (according to the grapevine) wants to move to NH.
ReplyDeleteI don't have a problem with students having a voice. I love that they have a voice; I don't have to agree with it. I am merely asking a question, which has not been answered. Is there a promotion of mediocrity at the high school? Not the other schools. The high school. I merely point out that the majority of students posting here seem to be championing mediocrity, and I'd like to know if that's the culture at the high school. I'm sure you work hard. But can you work harder? Do you want to?
ReplyDeleteReality Check:
ReplyDeleteStudents are the responsibility of their parents.
Taxes are the responsibility of their parents.
Teachers work for the community, paid for by the taxes. Managed by the SAU, paid for by the taxes.
If anyone can't follow the math, then I a more concerned about the mathematics that I previously was....if anyone has a problem with money being part of the discussion, by all means WHY DON'T YOU PAY FOR IT????????
I think those that pay the check out to at least have a say it what is on the menu. This is a capitalistic, free market society. If you can't handle that reality now --as a student getting by on mom & dad's dime -- then you are in a world of hurt when you meet the real world.
Same goes for the teachers. If they think they have it so bad, go work in the private sector.
I wasn't saying that students here strive for mediocrity. It's just that a good amount of the students at our school do not have the ability to take AP classes. That explains why no one signs up for AP's.
ReplyDeleteParents don't understand anything about our high school. Your average Oyster River Student gets B's and doesn't take AP classes, and takes art classes. This isn't a private school. We have a unique student body that encompasses all areas of the academic spectrum.
That's why no one likes the school board. They only fight for the top students at our school.
Adding to Reality Check:
ReplyDeleteIf you think that you get to have what you want in your life without concern for how it's paid....if you think you ought to not have decisions be part of a public decision....then you really need to look into spending time in a socialist/communist country.
It sure seems like everyone needs to take a breath.
ReplyDeleteObviously this is an emotional issue, but it sure would be refreshing if we could talk more about what we actually want our district to be, so that maybe someone could write an actual strategic plan, and then we could ALL stop assuming or guessing what it is we think we want from our leaders and schools. It is pretty clear we seem to be a deeply divided blog, although I am not sure we are as divided a community.
For me, after reading this blog I would have to conclude there has been a bait and switch over the past ten years. I was told our schools are some of the best in the state. I was told our philosophy on education is progressive and our results impressive. I live here and pay exceptionally high taxes so that my kids will be prepared and able to get into the best schools in the country, because that's what everyone boasted about. 20 years ago the data supported the claims. I can see this isn't the case right now, but if this was by design, this is information that would have been nice to know before I moved here.
I am very insulted that you would even think that stating that each student tries their hardest is "championing mediocrity". I believe that a school should support every student as ours has in the past. If that means for some kids going to a vocational school and for others helping them choose classes to help them get into a Ivy Legue school then that is providing good service for a community. Shame on whoever views this as mediocrity.
ReplyDeleteMr/Mrs/Ms post of 5:01pm, I couldn't agree with you more!! We only want what we're paying for.
ReplyDeleteAnd to the student who says the school board is only concerned about high achieving students. Bring these concerns to them, as a parent of 2 kids who are more musically/artistically inclined I know I expect their needs to be considered along with the one I suspect will be a student who needs ap/advanced classes to stay awake in school.
work harder? How do you expect the staff (Teachers, Paras, etc) to work harder than they already do when the school board does not seem to back them up? The school pushes their students to a point where many complain-yet they do the work. I think the fact that their are students posting on this blog says alot- if they were only mediocre students, wouldn't they keep their mouths shut and just go with the flow?
ReplyDeletefor all those ripping on communism and socialism. Welcome to the most liberal high school in the state!!!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteLooking back on some of the student posts, i agree, we are not oblivious to the school boards struggles. I can tell you that I am an ORMS student in the Class of 2015, and I will be leaving the district next year. I am the 19th student that has confirmed going elsewhere. My needs as a learner have never been met in my three years here, and maintaining solid grades is a struggle. I work as hard as i can every night to get my work done. When the board does not back up my parents, teachers, and fellow students, it makes me sick.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI am completely baffled by the belief that our schools are failing. The ORCSD is a remarkable system, which has given a solid foundation for students to take with them and succeed as contributing citizens in the world at large, in whatever capacity that may be. We are not resting on our laurels; frankly I feel that we are eroding the core of a high school from which they were based. ORHS obtained its reputation because of its uniqueness -- a philosophy of individualized instruction and creative thought. The catalogue of studies was more akin to one offered by a college, not a high school. There used to be a unique grading scale, there was a unique honor society, there were unique advanced level classes. I’ve seen many of these attributes being chipped away, in some sort of frenzy to “keep up” without realizing that this will make us just ordinary.
ReplyDeleteFor those with young children, I implore you to talk to families that have children who are going through or have gone through the high school. Dig deeper into the issues and don’t be swayed by a few who are disgruntled. I would also recommend a viewing of the movie “Race to Nowhere”. It provides a good perspective.
In terms of the principal search process, I find it curious that the concept of representative democracy is lost on some. Do individuals feel that they have a right to be part of the selection of all public officials? Should community members be the driving force in the hiring of local officials like a town administrator or police chief? At the state level, should we sit in on committees to hire the head of Fish and Game? a new dean at UNH? What about at the federal level? I think the point is made.
We have great kids, we have great teachers, we have great parents.
ReplyDeleteWhat is missing?
A strong leader who can unite, and put all of us together towards the common goal of continuing the good work of this district, and contiually striving for improvement. Anyone who is a professional in the public or private sector shares this goal.
What is missing?
A strong leader. Howard Colter has torn apart this district by allowing this to occur. Board members are volunteers, with children of their own, who care deeply about the community, schools and children.
A strong leader would work to inspire and guide a rookie board.
Where are the former board members to help the rookie board members in this difficult time?
Why are we all quick to cast stones and blame and not work with each other instead of against each other.
There are many things unknown, board members are bound by law to not discuss personnell issues so to make assumptions about intent is unfair.
To assume our students are not amazing, is unfair.
Can't we just all take a breath, and work together to find a common solution?
Joann has been showing up to every board meeting since she left the table, why isn't she mentoring the board in a positive collaborate way?
ReplyDeleteWhy is she working harder to divide the community by sending around her nasty e-mail telling everyone the board is abusing their power?
Why is Howard not standing behind his bosses, the board, rather he is allowing the situation to escalate.
There is plenty of blame to go around here. Please, just keep the students out of it. It horrifies me that the students have had to get this worked up over this. Parents, this is a teaching moment, a chance to let kids know that sometime decisions are made that do not make sense, but often we do not have the privilage of knowing why, but we do have to place faith in trust in those that serve.
We need to stop guessing why, and let the board have a chance to explain.
Yes- keep the kids out of this. But are we going to believe what the board says? How can we? Are they going to be truly honest or are they just going to say what everyone wants to hear?
ReplyDeleteI think it is clear that the anonymous posting is not working. The hypocrisy on the blog is ridiculous. People should have to account for their words.
ReplyDeleteI hope the previous poster isn't referring to my forwarding of JoAnn's letter to some people that I thought might like to read it. I asked her (through John) if it was OK to forward it, she did not ask me to do it. She did initially send a copy to John. I assume it is still OK for like-minded people to share thoughts with each other... I would hate for her to be criticized for my actions.
From what I know of this situation, JoAnn is not responsible for the division in the community. It is so hypocritical to talk of having faith and trust in those that serve when it is the lack of faith and trust in the administration that caused the division. There is no more faith and trust. You can't have it only when it is convenient for you. For many, I believe it is just too late to have any faith in many members of the Board. It is truly unfortunate for everyone that it has come to this, but here we are.
I pay taxes here in Durham, have 3 kids who will soon enter the school system (who are all exceptional, by the way), and also made the choice to be here because of the quality of the district - which I believe to be intact. I also value rigorous learning opportunities. What I most find objectionable in this whole aftershock is the idea that education is viewed by some in this town as a consumer good. I don't like sending my tax check to the town any more than you do but I also do not feel entitled to (a) be included in every decision that might someday affect my child just because I pay taxes, or (b) petulantly appeal to my consumer power until I get my way (i.e., "I foot the bill around here!"). Yes, I think the community should own its educational system, but I do not think this should devlolve into individualism or aggressive moves to disrupt "business as usual" (to cite Jenna Roberts' recent letter to town administrators).
ReplyDeleteBut, since trying to fashion the school around one's private economic interest seems to be the prevailing logic in this 'community,' and since I am one of the people who foots the bill, I wish to register my objection that a minority of individuals appear to be maneuvering to make ORHS into their own private school. I do not want MY TAX DOLLARS serving your private interests. Send your kid to an elite summer program, go to Kaplan, send them to finishing school, whatever. Do it on your dime. Don't jeopardize the holistic education I value for my children by imposing your own narrow agenda. Any change in philosophy in this direction needs to be seriously considered; I, for one, think it is bankrupt and I refuse to pay for it.
(By the way, I am posting anonymously because I do not trust the local politicos to not seek retribution.)
Poster at 9:10: you are posting anonymously because you are a liar and a coward, plain and simple. You make false accusations about individuals, call them by name, and refuse to sign your own.
ReplyDeleteModerator: please restore some sense of sanity to this blog and remove the ability to post anonymously. Just as our School Board needs to be held accountable for its actions, so too to the rest of us.
I thought long and hard about whether or not I would post today. Like many others brave enough to post their name ~ and regardless of whether or not I agree with their opinions on education or the situation ~ I believe it’s time for the anonymous option to be stopped.
ReplyDeleteLast night’s meeting was my first physically attended school board meeting. I have to say my admiration for those individuals ~ including those I desperately disagree with ~ is immeasurable. Not one person on that board ~ from Howard to the volunteers ~ deserve the belligerent, disrespectful manner in which they were treated last night.
Many people in the audience spoke of respect, honestly, civility. Yet apparently it only applies to themselves and not the school board. Honestly, I don’t care if you 1000% disagree with someone, you have no RIGHT to speak out of turn [there IS a public comment section] ~ the 9th Amendment folks. One citizen’s rights end where another’s begin. I certainly have the right to attend a meeting and actually hear it. That right is just as important as those who have a right to express themselves. No one has the right to libelously accuse people of dishonestly or corruption without actual proof. Even if you have proof, there is an appropriate avenue to display that proof. Shouting from the audience as that board member is speaking is both inappropriate and reeking of a lack of civility, integrity, and class.
Most of all, I found a teachable moment for the student population turned into a public rally for one individual who did not get elected last cycle. I found the students encouraged by this individual’s comments, demeanor, and inability to follow the format. Unfortunately it was not televised. As a parent, I would have been horrified if I saw my children speak to adults in positions of authority ~ or not ~ in that manner. There is a civil way to disagree and to express that disagreement.
To encourage disparagement of the school board, people who have reputations that will exist beyond their participation in this service to our community, is not only irresponsible it is inappropriate for adults in position of leadership.
Also, I am greatly upset by one-search committee member’s comments. I can’t post her name, as I could not hear due to the constant out of turn commenting of the students sitting behind me. But her comments ~ from what I could actually hear ~ implied that one principal candidate was essentially and quickly known by the committee to not be a good fit for the school. Yet that person was presented to me ~ the public ~ as one of the options to be placed for nomination. Essentially, the life juggle my family had to do to get me to the Principal Tea was for naught as the committee, of which Howard is a part of, had already made their choice. Their request for input from the Tea attendees, and the public via letter/email was a charade. Essentially the life juggle that candidate but himself, his career, and his loved ones through was for naught because he was no more than a pawn in the situation.
I can say this without concern that I am libeling because she said it. Furthermore, if people want to complain that they felt that the school board had lead them to believe erroneously that there never was an intention to hire a principal, I have to question whether or not there was a true intention from the committee to provide an actual choice to the school board. Again, I had some serious trouble hearing over the ‘congratulated civility’ noise within the audience. If what I am saying is incorrect, then my sincerest apologies to her, because I tried as mightily as I could to hear her.
Part II
ReplyDeleteTo be included in this admittedly overly long post, is my deep concern that Howard did not once comment in defense of the school board. My understanding of this whole organization is that the superintendent is answerable and responsible to the school board. Not once did he request or comment to the audience about the disrespect and disruption that many of the school board had to deal with during their work. I can’t understand this at all. Again, whether or not you agree with another, said individual deserves to be treated appropriately. My understanding is the Howard is the leader, he has every right to address the audience. Any other Superintendent I have ever met would never tolerate what was tolerated last night. As a citizen and parent I expected him to speak up.
For the multitude that will comment, anonymously of course, that they can do/say whatever they want, whenever they want I respectfully suggest “Good Luck With That” in your future endeavors. Whether you go into a military career, public or private sector employment, or become entrepreneurs you will soon find there is always going to be someone you are answerable to, someone else whose opinions will matter. This self-indulgent attitude that you and only you matter is going to be a detriment. Any one that is telling you differently is not adequately preparing you for what real world life will be outside of high school.
I imagine this post and me personally is going to get slaughtered. Which is unfortunate in that my honest thoughts are both not appreciated or respected.
My son participated in the walkout today, and he came home pumped up about have made a statement!
ReplyDeleteMy 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.
Upright Moralist,
ReplyDeleteReally ???? Talk about name calling and being disrespectful.
I agree with the post @ 9:10
Some( not all) of the problems seem to come from several people who feel that they alone know what is best for the district.
I am a taxpayer and parent and my opinion is just as important as yours.
Please be respectful to others!