1 / 68

Board Presentation, 5-15-2012

Results of the 2012 Lee County Community Survey. Board Presentation, 5-15-2012. Introduction. Gibson Consulting Group, Inc . Provide research and consulting services exclusively in the education sector

idalee
Télécharger la présentation

Board Presentation, 5-15-2012

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Results of the 2012 Lee County Community Survey Board Presentation, 5-15-2012

  2. Introduction • Gibson Consulting Group, Inc. • Provide research and consulting services exclusively in the education sector • Survey research, program evaluation, efficiency analysis, performance-based budgeting, technology consulting, decision support, financial reviews • Experience with over 250 school systems in 15 states over the past 20 years

  3. Lee County Project Team • Amie Rapaport, Ph.D. – Project Director • Greg Gibson, President and Advisor • Project Team • Cheyanne Rolf • Elissa Yeates • Marshall Garland • Ali Taylan

  4. Presentation Outline • Purpose and goals • Survey development • Administration methods • Results • Questions

  5. Project Purpose and Goals • To obtain community input that will inform the District’s decision making • Four key questions:

  6. Question 1 What are the community’s values regarding the importance of different elements of school assignment systems?

  7. Question 2 How well is the District teaching students skills that will prepare them and make them competitive for college and for 21st Century careers?

  8. Question 3 Which types of programs, including language offerings, would attract parents to particular schools?

  9. Question 4 How well is the District fostering parent involvement, and what more can be done to increase parents’ involvement in their child’s education?

  10. Presentation Outline • Purpose and goals • Survey development • Administration methods • Results • Questions

  11. Survey Development • Adult Survey and Student Survey • Methods of school assignment • Students’ college and career readiness • Specific program offerings • Parent involvement

  12. Survey Development • Methods of school assignment • Commonly perceived advantages to each system

  13. Survey Development • Methods of school assignment • How important you think it is that… (1=Not Important, 4 = Extremely Important) • Adults: Responded separately for elementary and secondary levels • Students: Responded only generally • Both: 3 MOST important and 3 LEAST important

  14. Survey Development • Students’ college and career readiness • Partnership for 21st Century Skills: Framework for 21st Century Learning

  15. Survey Development • Students’ college and career readiness • Included 14 areas from P21 • Added two others: • Preparation for applied technical careers • Preparation for four-year colleges • How Lee County schools are doing (1 = Not Well, 4 = Extremely Well)

  16. Survey Development • Students’ college and career readiness

  17. Survey Development • Specific Program Offerings • Career and Technical Academies • Select 5 that are important to have • School-Level Programs • Select 3 you would want a school to have • Languages • Which 1 language should a student be able to study

  18. Survey Development • Parent Involvement • 1 closed-ended question, 1 open-ended question • Closed ended (Adults only) • Lee County schools provide sufficient opportunities for parents/guardians to get involved (1 = Strongly Disagree, 4 = Strongly Agree) • Open-ended (both Adults and Students) • What things can Lee County do to help parents/ guardians be part of their child’s education

  19. Survey Development • Demographics • Adults • Students

  20. Presentation Outline • Purpose and goals • Survey development • Administration methods • Results • Questions

  21. Administration Methods • Adult Survey • Survey window February 1 – February 29, 2012 • Online and hard copy formats • English, Spanish, and Haitian Creole • Multiple methods employed

  22. Administration Methods • Adult Survey • Hard copy dissemination • 20,000 through public and charter main offices • 15,000 through local newspaper subscriptions • 6,000 sent home with interim grades or otherwise sent with students • 5,500 through community organizations (e.g., churches, homeless shelters, United Way, religious organizations, District’s Parent Assistance Center) • 1,500 through Public Library System • 10,000 other-language as needed

  23. Administration Methods • Adult Survey • Flyers, Email (directing to leecountyvoice.com) • 100,000 flyers through utility companies • 5,000 flyers sent home with students • District online newsletter • Email sent to: • Parents with email on file • District staff • Business contacts through four Chambers of Commerce • Lee County Education Foundation contacts • City of Sanibel residents email list

  24. Administration Methods • Adult Survey • Other • Parent Link • Link posted on school websites • Press releases • Information cards through DAC • Five digit text code

  25. Administration Methods • Student Survey • Sampling framework • All secondary schools • One grade in middle, two grades in high • Total sample identified = 16,802 students • 40% middle, 60% high (secondary target sample) • 43% middle, 57% high (secondary population) • Hard copy only • Administered in schools/classrooms to students identified by the research team

  26. Presentation Outline • Purpose and goals • Survey development • Administration methods • Results • Questions

  27. Results – Response Counts • Adult Survey • 10,164 submitted responses • 219 contained too much missing data • 1 did not live in Lee County • 11 were under 18 • 115 were potentially duplicative • Total analytic sample = 9,818 • Statistical reliability: • 99% Confidence Interval, 1.3% margin of error • If repeated 100 times would get same results 99 times

  28. Results – Respondent Counts • Student Survey • 13,296 submitted responses (79% response rate) • 434 completed by students in non-targeted grades • 22 answered only demographic questions • Total analytic sample = 12,840 • Statistical reliability: • 99% Confidence Interval, <1% margin of error • If repeated 100 times would get same results 99 times

  29. Results – Respondent Demogs • Respondent Demographics • Adult Respondents • 98% live in Lee County year round • Almost half have lived in Lee County for > 15 years • Two-thirds were parents of school-age children (86% of these had a child in a Lee County school) • 77% women • One-third were District staff • 14% business owners or executives

  30. Results – Respondent Demogs • Respondent Demographics • Adult Respondents • Race/Ethnicity, income, and age proportionate to population Lee County Median Income: $50,000 Sample: 44% < $50,000 56% > $50,000 • Lee County Median Age: • 46 • Sample: • Average = 45 • 80% between 31 and 60

  31. Results – Respondent Demogs • Respondent Demographics • Student Respondents • 93% have lived in Lee County for > 1 year • Half male, half female • 44% middle school, 56% high school • Every school serving secondary students represented (no one school accounted for >6% of responses)

  32. Results – Respondent Demogs • Respondent Demographics • Student Respondents • Race/Ethnicity proportionate to District secondary population

  33. Results – School Assignment • Student Results • Choice advantages more important

  34. Results – School Assignment • Adult Results – Overall

  35. Results – School Assignment • Adult Results – Elementary • All adults agree that students staying in same school for all grades is one of the most important • For second and third most important issues:

  36. Results – School Assignment • Adult Results – Elementary DATA VISUALIZATION

  37. Results – School Assignment • Adult Results – Secondary

  38. Results – School Assignment • Adult Results – Secondary • These results were consistent for almost all subgroups

  39. Results – School Assignment • Adult Results • Least important, consistently: • Going to school with students from different backgrounds • Attending schools outside of one’s neighborhood • Students being able to change schools

  40. Results – School Assignment • Differences between adults and students

  41. Results – Preparedness for College… • Adult and Student Results • Overall ratings were positive • Reading/ELA most positive • Foreign language instruction consistently negative • Few scores above 3.0 out of 4.0 • Students rated technology instruction less favorably than adults

  42. Results – Preparedness for College… Adults

  43. Results – Preparedness for College… Students

  44. Results – Preparedness for College… • Differences by subgroup • Overall order of ratings essentially the same • Systematic differences:

  45. Results – Programs and Services • Career and Technical Academies • School-level programs • Languages

  46. Results – Programs and Services • Career and Technical Academies • 98% of adults and 95% of students interested in at least one academy • Adults: • Health Science • Business, Management and Administration • Information Technology • Students: • Medical/Sports Medicine • Law, Public Safety, Security • Other • Mostly Fine and Performing Arts

  47. Results – Programs and Services • Career and Technical Academies • Many differences by subgroup • Gender differences (particularly among students) • Ethnicity • Parent status • Income DATA VISUALIZATION

  48. Results – Programs and Services • School-level programs • Adults • STEM-Focused curriculum (72%) • Classes for the Fine and Performing Arts (57%) • Technology-focused instruction (57%) • Students • Technology-focused instruction (74%) • Classes for the Fine and Performing Arts (58%) • STEM-Focused curriculum (46%)

  49. Results – Programs and Services • School-level programs • Greatest consensus regarding need for STEM • 86% of respondents 71 and older • 79% of highest income respondents • Greater interest in Technology-focused instruction among • Highest income group (64%) • 50 years and above (second most desired) • Among students • Boys interested in Technology and STEM • Girls interested in Fine and Performing Arts

  50. Results – Programs and Services • Languages (other than Spanish, French and German)

More Related