Link to the Survey Results!

After looking for this every day or so for the last few weeks, here's the link to the survey results.

Enjoy!

http://www.ecsdnet.org/documents/CAC/survey%20results/Evansville%202014%20Survey%20Report%20draft%20-2.pdf

Update to the School Perceptions Update

Here's an up date to the survey participation rate question, hot off the presses. Chelsea Davis from School Perceptions sent me this email literally the minute I posted the first update. I will wait a few days to post this so new data isn't made obsolete in minutes.  

Hi again, Melissa.

There is one correction I need to make.  We are working on updating the report and noticed that the total percentage of surveys taken was based on an incorrect number of surveys mailed.  In addition to the 3,552 surveys mailed via Every Door Direct Mail, there were 471 additional surveys mailed to individuals who do not live on Evansville Post Office routes, but are considered District residents.  Therefore, the total number of surveys mailed was 4,023 and the overall response rate as of last Monday (1,148 surveys taken) was 28.5%.

We apologize for any inconvenience.  This percentage will be corrected in the updated version of the report that will be provided to the District.

A 28.5% (1148/4023) response rate is better that the 27.3% using the Gazette's reported 4200 surveys distributed and a heck of a lot better than the paltry 400 (9.9%) the committee, with the input of School Perceptions, had determined would give them sufficiently rigorous statistics to extrapolate the results to the entire district.

Then today, I got a call from Janesville Gazette's Gina Duwe to ask me for information regarding my board candidacy. In the course of that conversation, I was able to ascertain where the original "4200" came from. Gina follows my blog and wanted to clear up her source of the total number of surveys. She told me that her source of surveys being sent to "all 4200" district homes was Mr. Roth in a previous context, which she logically extrapolated to this situation and, honestly, is pretty close to the actual number of surveys sent. I told her that even the new estimate doesn't capture the total available surveys, so don't sweat it. With the additional surveys distributed from the office (and other sources?) as well as additional codes emailed to survey respondents who requested one for each voter in the house, it's likely that there were even more than 4200 surveys made available to folks. I also told her that I wasn't criticizing her report, it's just that my analytical brain went into spasms trying to do a calculation that wasn't computing.

The bottom line is this: since School Perceptions has been doing this for over a decade with many districts, it's likely they consistently calculate the percent response rate for their survey results. So no matter what value is used, the nearly 30% rate of return was calculated in a consistent manner and, compared to surveys in other districts, is very high. I am satisfied that the values of the ECSD have been recorded in this process and can guide the district in their future decisions. I hope the board will use this data to come up with a good Strategic Plan to help them all stay focused on the vision of Excellence in all aspects of Education.

Come Early to Get a Good Seat at the March 12 School Board Meeting

I know the agenda has yet to be published, but as they summarized the agenda coming forward to the school board meeting on March 12 at the Feb 26 meeting, I knew this meant 1) March 12 is going to be a long meeting and 2) a lot of interested parties will attend that don't normally do so. The district has already anticipated this and changed the normal venue to TRIS LMC (library for us old farts), entrance through the Fair Street (bus) doors. The staff has been planning to bring food and hunker down for the duration. Start time is 6:00. Come early for best viewing!

The two top drawing cards for attendance will be:

1). The Citizen Advisory Committee presentation of its recommendations to the school board based on the recent community survey.

2). The 4K Investigative Committee's presentation and recommendations to the school board based on their research and the survey results.

Either of these two presentations would increase attendance, but both items will likely increase public comment time and fill the library with interested parties. If you have something to say about either of these items, come have your 5 minutes of fame. The lousy weather has shifted the timing on the 4KIC presentation from 2-26 to 3-12, but given that the information from the survey wasn't available until two days prior to the expected presentation date of 2-26, that was probably a hidden bonus. Now there is time to put together a well-designed presentation that reflects all the hard work of the committee. The 4KIC is practicing on March 10 in the TRIS library for those interested in a preview. Paula Lander's leadership of this committee has been the epitome of professionalism and has made all the difference to the final product. Our district is very lucky to have her as curriculum coordinator and I hope they recognize that.

I don't remember all the other agenda items coming forward to the next meeting, but they will probably approve the Girl's Hockey co-op with the Stoughton (currently) 4-op, again with parents shouldering the burden of (really high) costs here. Pay periods, Press Box, Budget updates this year and next, Insurance updates, etc. will probably reappear. Basically all the items on the Budget portion of the last meeting might come up again in the discussion section of the next meeting. I don't know if the paperless board packets will come to this meeting, but Doreen said she would do a cost analysis of the various forms of what "paperless" means. I'll try to remember to post the agenda when available later this week!

One disturbing comment came up when discussing the pros and cons of changing to a policy governance model (only 12 districts out of 426 currently use it in Wisconsin). "Their meetings seem to be shorter," was mentioned as a perk. Some of the current board members seem to rate productivity of board meetings with how quickly they are finished. Too bad for our district. I always thought how well a board advocates for the education of ALL of its students was the most important measure of productivity for a school board. Taking a peek at the open enrollment net deficit alone, I'm thinking a few more hours might be called for. That is all, except if you want this attitude to be challenged:

Union Forum Went Smoothly

Whew! Four school board activities in a week is a bit much for me. I haven't worked up to the board member endurance level yet, so WOW!

Last Thursday was the 4K Investigative Committee meeting at which we received a preliminary version of the March 12 presentation for input and comment. Monday was the survey presentation by School Perceptions, Wednesday was the school board meeting, where amazing board member Kathi Swanson reminded all present that $300K of the $335K surplus from last year is already spoken for via the phone system, a hundred thousand a year for three years. All the grand schemes presented by the administration for devising a "stipend" system for all employees (carefully avoiding calling it a bonus) was a little premature and could they not spend the surplus more than once? Also, since the CAC will be bringing recommendations to the board on March 12 for referendum, there's that to be considered for some of the surplus, and OH HEY 4KIC will recommend we start that program up to for 200-some thousand initial dollars that very same night. I too am guilty of forgetting about the phone system snafu last year, so all my carefully constructed analysis regarding the referendum stuff is off by a hundred thousand.

Then last night, the EEA invited all six candidates to a Q&A forum at Creekside Place to follow up on a questionnaire they sent to us earlier this month. Last year's election began a new tradition in which the EEA submits questions, hosts a forum for meet, greet 'n follow-up questions and decides who they plan to endorse going forward. Those chosen get a small stipend to spend on election costs. There wasn't as big a turn out as last year, probably because of the blinking cold. Many who were there sounded miserable with upper respiratory ailments and said about half or more of the staff sounded like they did. I asked Julie if they could also host a public forum, but she said taxing entity restrictions prevent them from doing so when they are planning to publicly endorse candidates. That's sad, because I don't think the Review will be able to get somebody to do the "Meet your school board candidates" series this year. Do any of my readers want to host a forum?

There were two follow up questions posed by DJ Redders this year:

1 What have you done first had to get to know how the schools operate?

2 How do you help show that your staff is valued?

A question from Tom Bethke followed those questions after this observation:
The board meetings have gone from a collaborative process to one that seems to focus on penny pinching. What could you do to return to the collaborative process?

These were all outstanding questions and once again, Kathi Swanson hit it out of the ballpark with the last question. "The reason we are stuck in penny pinching mode is because we have no strategic plan, which the board purposely put on hold but now needs to address." Kudos to Ms. Swanson for her laser focus on the most important problem in our district. From her lips to the boards ears!

The rest of our answers to the above questions were fair to middling, but not necessarily earth shaking. I focused on my analytical skills and finance expertise, identified my persistence and willingness to speak my mind and drill down to get answers, but I don't get a sense that the teachers necessarily value financial skills per se, but the overall sense from the teachers was strong appreciation for pointing out to the school board back in November that they need to make sure the district spends their budgets. I hope to get their endorsement!

I'll post the questions asked by the EEA and my answers with the next post.

School Perceptions Presents Raw Data from the Survey Monday February 24.

Happy Surprise For the Skeptics Among Us (Like Me, for Instance).

WARNING: MASSIVE QUANTITIES OF FUN DATA ANALYSIS WILL BE INCORPORATED IN THIS POST. PLEASE STEP AWAY FROM THE BLOG IF THIS DRIVES YOU TO DISTRACTION. 

Monday night I attended the Citizen's Advisory Committee meeting at which the full survey results were shared. I have a visceral need to see all the raw data and it was particularly informative to hear Bill Foster from School Perceptions give the data with the perspective from other community results. I am glad my friend told me about this meeting and that I could attend it. "Bill Foster won't be presenting this at a board meeting," I was told. Hmm. So far, I haven't seen a link to a copy of the presentation on the school website either. I hope to see it soon and I will post the link as soon as I see it.

My data crunching brain has already gone into gear on this survey, causing me to submit what is likely the first of several questions to School Perceptions. This one regards the percent response reported in the survey.  I remembered Mr. Foster reported that the 32.3% response rate (1148 surveys) was one of the highest he'd seen in over a decade of doing business. That alone is reason to celebrate. It appears all the overkill survey reminders did the trick! And then this morning, on my way out to yoga, I read the Janesville Gazette article summarizing the survey results. In that article, it was reported that surveys had been mailed to all 4200 homes in the district. That detail was not shared during Mr. Foster's presentation, but it also percolated in my caffeine deprived brain for a few hours. A few hours and a sufficient amount of caffeine later, it dawned on me that 1148 was not a third of 4200, but rather 27.3%. Wha??? So after I confirmed that the source of the "4200 surveys" was the Gazette, I emailed Mr. Foster to ask him how many surveys were mailed out. He's looking into the data for me and I have to say, I was really impressed with how quickly they responded to my question. Two School Perceptions people emailed me about this already, but the person who knows the answer is on vacation until Monday, so I'll keep you posted on that point.

My concerns about how the board was to use the data from the survey to create a Strategic Plan were somewhat allayed as well. The way the data was crunched seems logical, but I still need to cogitate on it some more to come up with a list of questions for Mr. Foster.  I was glad to see that there was a way to quantify the information in a way that can be used to prioritize expenditure of limited resources. I am not so glad to see the focus on referendum. It really takes chutzpah to go out with your hat in your hand and ask the property owners of the highest taxed school district in the county to increase their district tax burden by nearly 12% when they have failed to fully spend all their allotted revenue in five of the last six years to the tune of over a million dollars. For those who need to see the numbers like I do, here's a brief synopsis. The total additional amount needed to fund these initiatives that the CAC will recommend to the board for referendum is $146.88 per $100,000 in property value for four years. This adds $1.47 to the already exorbitant mill rate of $12.30 (which is based per thousand in property value), or an 11.94% increase.

Another curious aspect of the survey was the question about what to do with JCMMS (Middle School). The greatest response (40%) weren't sure what to do. The remaining 60% slightly favored replacing the middle school to renovating it 34-26%. After all, that renovation thing was already done in the 2001 referendum and that sure wasn't a fix.  The ambivalence was likely due to lack of information regarding the cost. When it should be done had a plurality locked up at 2020 or later (43%). Knowing that the current high mill rate could not bear the burden of another major building referendum, the survey respondents wisely selected "2020 or after." But how does that data translate to how strongly the people would support a more modest, temporary referendum in the interim? Those are some of the questions I have for Mr. Foster. I just don't think this sleepy little town is ready for that kind of tax increase, even though I agree that the areas targeted for referendum support are woefully underfunded. But why is the real question. My observation has been that their budgets were raided or unreasonably restricted over the last decade and we all own some of the fault for that. If the district took that total referendum amount required to support these initiatives and subtracted the million plus they have put into their coffers over the last six years, folks might be a little more open to the idea. In the mean time, lets run some numbers with regard to that idea.

The total sum of money stashed into district coffers in the last six years amounts to $1,095,589. Adding in the expected $165,483 surplus penciled into this year's budget, that leaves a cool $1,261,072 seven year surplus in the fund balance after June 30, 2014. Now lets look at the costs needed to address the highest priority issues facing the district according to the survey. Curriculum updates: $900.000;Safety and security: $300,000; Major Maintenance needs: $2,800,000;Technology upgrade: $1,520,000, for a grand total of $5,520,000.  Now subtract the amount put into the fund balance over the last seven years to come to a total expenditure need of  $4,258,928. Divide by four for the annual referendum needed each year for four years to see the total annual expenditure of $1,064,732, down from the annual expense of $1,380,000 before subtracting the fund surplus. Doing a simple ratio to calculate the new mill rate increase results in reducing that increase from $1.47 per thousand in property value to $1.13 per thousand (23% reduction), but still adding a hefty 9.2% to the mill rate for the next four years. At least it's gone into single digits. Looked at another way, using the fund balance surplus from the last four years would completely finance both the curriculum improvements (which garnered the highest priority on the survey) and address safety issues and still have a little left over, enough to hire a teacher ($61,072)! I warned you that my data crunching brain has begun to explore the possibilities for using the survey results.

And now for the downside of this proposal. Using up all the funds placed into the fund balance in the last seven years would reduce the percent in the fund balance to a paltry 7.7%, about what they had before they implemented a policy to grow the fund balance. This will make borrowing terms less attractive in a time when the ultimate goal of the district would be to keep building that value so they get good loan terms when they have to build a new middle school. I'm the first person to say this is a balancing act, but I'm not very optimistic that our town would vote for a referendum for all four of these items. Maybe the CAC doesn't intend to recommend all four, as Mr. Foster cautioned them to keep the questions to 3. The Gazette article was unclear about which specific items would be recommended to the board, so I included both safety and maintenance items. Maybe the 3 highest priorities and excluding the $2.8 Million dollar maintenance issues, which in reality came in at only 49% yes votes and 31% "Need more info/undecided." That would reduce the annual levy increase to only $680,000, bumping the baseline mill rate by a much more palatable 6%, or 75 cents per thousand in property value. That could be where the average citizen would call a compromise: Keep the money in the fund balance to borrow against at a later date and take a smaller hit for four years to get us through to 2020.

What would this mean to the owner of a $150,000 home? You'd pay an additional $112.08 a year in property taxes on top of the $1,845 you currently pay to support the schools (the bill is a lot higher but due to other taxing entities). That's an additional $2.16 a week to support our schools. How many of us spend that much on coffee alone? I'm willing to cough that much up for our schools.

Granted, I have two kids in the district (as well as one graduate). Based on our property values, our "tuition" for each kid will become $1305, or $145 a month per kid for 9 months of school. That doesn't include all the fees and such, but it's a way to look at it. But 49% of the survey respondents were not parents. Some of these folks get a bit testy about supporting schools when they get no direct benefit, in their minds. That's not true, of course, but many think this way.

Finally, what did the survey say about 4K? As Mr. Foster said, "This is a lightening rod topic." He even complimented the 4K committee for their work (I'm blushing). Every way the data was evaluated showed that a majority of Evansville supporting the district offering 4K, even Non-Parent, Non-Staff residents. Overall, 56% of respondents support offering 4K. That is a real Community value change that has occurred in the last six years or so. Going to referendum on the above items will enable the board to temporarily use fund balance to implement 4K, with the goal of replacing the funds with 4K revenue once it exceeds expenses in year 3. That depends on the district getting serious about stemming the flow of open enrollment students out of our district by getting back to being the cutting edge district it used to be. Otherwise, they'll be back with hat in hand in 4 more years because the downward spiral has continued. I'm pretty sure these are the scenarios that will develop over the next months. I am happily surprised about how useful the survey results may become over time, as long a myopic folks don't use it as a cudgel.