leadership in high schools

What is it?

Who defines it?

Who owns it?

Is it relevant in a virtual learning world?

Kevin Davenport has assumed the supervisor position of Alternative Education, Hewes Center and Special Education for our BOCES programs at Brocton Central School.  Kevin brings with him much exposure in leadership positions within our component schools and I am looking forward to working with him and the staff at the Hewes Center as together we forge ahead on behalf of students and get them to realize their potential. 

I shall miss working directly with Kevin Bourgoine, Supervisor of the above position prior to his assuming the helm at our Chautauqua Lake Central School, BOCES programs. 

Every change brings new learning and new mountains to scale…….. best wishes both Mr. Bourgoine and Mr. Davenport in your new positions.

Thanks to Michelle Boutwell, SETRC trainer at Erie 2 CC BOCES who compiled the piece below. 

State Performance Plan Indicator #2 addresses the drop out rate for students with disabilities.  At the end of the first phase of our SPP, the expectation is that no more than 19.9% of SWDs will drop out (the bar will only get higher).  When a district is targeted as being at risk or in need of intervention for SPP #1(graduation) and SPP#2, we focus our attention at all three levels of students’ school careers.  We look for early warning signs at the elementary and middle school levels and target groups of students at the high school level who fall into the “at risk” category and see if we can keep them from jumping ship.

Here are some signs that you can look for in building risk profiles for your students: (2 or more research studies have supported these findings)

Elementary
• Low achievement (use universal screening data)
• Retention (student is older than his peers)
• Poor attendance
• Low socioeconomic status  

Middle School

• High-risk peer group
• High-risk behavior
• Low achievement
• Retention (older than his peers)
• Poor attendance
• Low educational expectations from school personnel
• Low socioeconomic status
• High family mobility
• Low family expectations
• Low family contact with the school
• Low number of family centered conversations about school

High School

• High number of work hours
• Parenthood
• Low achievement
• Retention (older than his peers)  1 grade of retention increases the risk by 40%; 2 grades of retention increases the risk by 90%
• Attendance  (Does your attendance policy contribute to low attendance?)
• Low educational expectations from the school
• Low commitment to school
• No extracurricular activity participation
• Misbehavior
• Low socioeconomic status
• Low education of parents
• Not living with both parents
• The top 5 reasons that students from ages 16-25 give for dropping out: (Rotermund, California Dropout Research Project, Statistical Brief #2, May 2007)
        1. Classes not interesting  47%
        2. Missed too many days of school  43%
        3. Friends are not interested in school  42%
        4. Excess freedom/too few life rules  38%
        5. Failing school  35%

Once we identify the students who are at high risk of dropping out of school, our collective challenge is trying to prevent it.  Between October 2005 and October 2006 enough students dropped out of US schools to fill 9, 690 school buses!  Think about what that does to our country’s economic and health care challenges.

Check out the National Dropout Prevention Center Network at Clemson University for more information.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-94JhLEiN0

Go the link above to view the new wedding entrance set to the music of Forever by Chris Brown.   This wedding took place in Minnesota, USA

Can you see the graduation class march in this same manner?  Non- traditional, funny, inspiring, involved and partiscipatory.  I loved it.

Every year the school leadership at our BOCES changes.  This is the normal turnover that takes place amongst Principals and Supervisors.  This turnover is a result of retirements, staff taking positions in component school districts and others moving from one location/site to another.  The vast spread of Erie 2 CC BOCES within Western New York allows for this geographical diversity and job relocation with respect to internal candidates.  This same flexibilty is affored teachers as well as school support staff. 

My colleague, Kevin Bourgoine who worked alongside me when he took ove r the Alternative Education postion at the Hewes Center will be moving to our satellite special education program based at Chautauqua Lake Central School.  Kevin has replaced Jennifer Clark, former supervisor at Chautauqua Lake Central School who has moved to our LoGuidice Center Special Education program.  LoGuidice Special Education programs were formerly supervised by Christine Burdick who has moved on to the Sherman School District to take over the Staff Development and Special Education supervisory role within that district.  Joe Pagan, former Assistant Principal in the Jamestown School District, has assumed the title of Principal at the LoGuidice Center. 

What do all these changes mean for program growth and instructional focus?

How does “new blood” infuse the leadership and organizational thinking which influences instructional performance and student achievement?

What do these leadership changes mean for the surrounding school districts that support BOCES programs?

These are just a few of the surface questions that come to mind when examining Leadership Transitions in any organization. 

I am in the process of reading The 29% Solution by Ivan R. Misner, PhD and Michelle R. Donavan.  This and other readings this summer will inform my thoughts on this subject.