public engagement & focus group (jan 26 & 27) report - march 19, 2015

12
By James Rickabaugh, Ph.D.

Upload: ecarvercoschools

Post on 23-Jul-2015

132 views

Category:

Education


2 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Public Engagement & Focus Group (Jan 26 & 27) Report - March 19, 2015

By

James Rickabaugh, Ph.D.

Page 2: Public Engagement & Focus Group (Jan 26 & 27) Report - March 19, 2015

Following is each of the remaining eleven questions and a compilation of audience responses. Please note that not every member of the audience responded to every question or, in some cases, any questions.

Chart 1: Demographics of session attendees

35

20 20

26

20

1

9

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Elementary Middle High Multiple children atdifferent grade

levels

I am a student Grown children whowent through E.

Carver Co. Schools

No children

Total

Total

"Do you have children in E. Carver Co. Schools? If so what grade(s) are they in."

Count of "Do you have children in E. Carver Co. Schools? If so what grade(s) are they in."

Parents of current students were well represented at both sessions. The two most frequently selected categories were parents of children in elementary schools and at multiple levels. Students were present only at the January 26 forum.

Page 3: Public Engagement & Focus Group (Jan 26 & 27) Report - March 19, 2015

Chart 2: Awareness of “cram, shuffle, build"

22

109

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

No, not prior to this meeting Yes

Total

Total

"Are you aware of recommendations made to the School Board related to cram shuffle or build?"

Count of "Are you aware of recommendations made to the School Board related to cram shuffle or build?"

People who attended the sessions were well informed of the facilities planning work completed to date. By an approximately 5:1 ratio respondents indicated awareness of the “cram, shuffle or build” approach to addressing facility needs.

Page 4: Public Engagement & Focus Group (Jan 26 & 27) Report - March 19, 2015

Chart 3: Housing growth predictions

63

21

13

35

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Carver Chanhassen Chaska Victoria

Total

Total

"Which city do you think will add the most single‐family homes in the next 5 years?"

Count of "Which city do you think will add the most single‐family homes in the next 5 years?"

Audience members at each session indicated that they anticipate the largest growth in the Carver and Victoria areas. Their predictions are consistent with other predictions regarding future growth.

Page 5: Public Engagement & Focus Group (Jan 26 & 27) Report - March 19, 2015

Chart 4: Awareness of overcrowding

18

111

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

No Yes

Total

Total

"Are you aware E. Carver Co. Schools has schools in western Chaska Carver and Victoria that are overcrowded?"

Count of "Are you aware E. Carver Co. Schools has schools in western Chaska Carver and Victoria that are overcrowded?"

Overwhelmingly, the attendees both evenings reported awareness of the current school overcrowding in western Chaska, Carver and Victoria. However, there remained a few respondents for whom the challenge was unfamiliar.

Page 6: Public Engagement & Focus Group (Jan 26 & 27) Report - March 19, 2015

Chart 5: Support for elementary school and land

54

44

1513

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Very high High Low Very low

Total

Total

"Rate your support for this item including the tax that would be required: A new elementary school and land"

Count of "Rate your support for this item including the tax that would be required: A new elementary school and land"

Attendees reported high levels of support for a new school and land purchase to accommodate growing enrollment. Twenty-two percent rated their support as “low” or “very low.”

Page 7: Public Engagement & Focus Group (Jan 26 & 27) Report - March 19, 2015

Chart 6: Support for deferred maintenance

6058

9

5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Very high High Low Very low

Total

Total

"Rate your support for this item including the tax that would be required: Long‐term maintenance projects like roofs window replacements parking lot resurfacing heating/ventilation/air conditioning updates boiler maintenance and outdoor equipment"

Count of "Rate your support for this item including the tax that would be required: Long‐term maintenance projects like roofs window replacements parking lot resurfacing heating/ventilation/air conditioning updates boiler maintenance and outdoor equipment"

Addressing deferred maintenance needs received the most support of any items tested at each session. Only about 10% of respondents reported “low” or “very low” support for addressing the condition of current facilities.

Page 8: Public Engagement & Focus Group (Jan 26 & 27) Report - March 19, 2015

Chart 7: Support for classroom additions at Victoria and Clover Ridge

44

53

26

9

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Very high High Low Very low

Total

Total

"Rate your support for this item including the tax that would be required: Classroom additions at Victoria and Clover Ridge to ease crowding"

Count of "Rate your support for this item including the tax that would be required: Classroom additions at Victoria and Clover Ridge to ease crowding"

Additions to Victoria and Clover Ridge Elementary Schools received combined “high” and “very high” support rating comparable to the construction of a new elementary school. However, the number of participants indicating very high support was down somewhat from the question regarding a new school.

Page 9: Public Engagement & Focus Group (Jan 26 & 27) Report - March 19, 2015

Chart 8: Support for additional operating revenue

50

63

21

2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Very high High Low Very low

Total

Total

"Rate your support for this item including the tax that would be required: Additional operating revenue for the district to preserve programs maintain class sizes and prevent service reductions."

Count of "Rate your support for this item including the tax that would be required: Additional operating revenue for the district to preserve programs maintain class sizes and prevent service reductions."

Additional operating revenue to preserve programs and maintain class sizes received strong support. This question generated the smallest number of “very low” support responses of all of the questions tested.

Page 10: Public Engagement & Focus Group (Jan 26 & 27) Report - March 19, 2015

Chart 9: Support for swimming pool

Construction of an indoor swimming pool facility received the largest number of responses in the “very high” category of the questions presented at each session. Support for this item was particularly high at the January 26 session open to the general public.

102

21

86

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Very high High Low Very low

Total

Total

"Rate your support for this item including the tax that would be required: An indoor swimming pool to be used for middle school for phy. ed.  HS swim and dive teams and community use."

Count of "Rate your support for this item including the tax that would be required: An indoor swimming pool to be used for middle school for phy. ed.  HS swim and dive teams and community use."

Page 11: Public Engagement & Focus Group (Jan 26 & 27) Report - March 19, 2015

Chart 10: Support for multi-purpose facility

3635

38

30

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Very high High Low Very low

Total

Total

"Rate your support for this item including the tax that would be required: A multi‐purpose facility at Chaska MS East for phy. ed. school athletics programs and community use"

Count of "Rate your support for this item including the tax that would be required: A multi‐purpose facility at Chaska MS East for phy. ed. school athletics programs and community use"

Responses to the construction of a physical education facility were the most evenly distributed of all of the questions presented at each session. The combination of “high” and “very high” support totaled 71 and the “low” and “very low” responses totaled 68.

Page 12: Public Engagement & Focus Group (Jan 26 & 27) Report - March 19, 2015

Chart 11: Ballot structure: More or fewer questions

When asked about the construction of a ballot question, 36 more people indicated a preference for multiple questions that would break out specific items for voters to address than those indicating preference for the fewest ballot questions possible.

52

88

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Ballot should be simple to understand ‐‐ as few questions as possible Ballot should give voters options ‐‐ even it if means 3, 4 or 5 separatequestions

Total

Total

"If the school board is planning a referendum ballot do you prefer more options or a simple choice"

Count of "If the school board is planning a referendum ballot do you prefer more options or a simple choice"