Survey Results

THE SURVEY RESULTS ARE IN!

Firstly, thank you for taking the time to take the survey. The survey elicited responses from a perfect mix of participants- 42 in total with 21 unaffected and 21 affected individuals from ALL 8 elementary schools. Some participants did not even have any elementary-school-aged children nor will have them in the 2009-2010 school year, which means we can boast having a better sample than the district did for their customer service satisfaction survey last year. While a small sample, it is a good one, and one we are proud of. Their survey did not reach those not yet having children in elementary school like ours did, and we have no idea how many of their 180 completed surveys came from the elementary schools, let alone which schools.

Due to the anonymous nature of the website and the survey, it would seem that just as it prevented press to help reach a greater number of Portage residents, those who would most benefit from seeing the survey results are quick to discredit these results, which is the district. Some really want to know who we are and have asked whether or not we have a spokesperson-anyone up for this job on a volunteer basis? Hopefully this is not the case and merely only an initial response, as it would be very unfortunate if the district chooses to disregard the information shared with them pertaining to some of the statistics shared below entirely. This is the perfect opportunity for them to get to the bottom of it, the truth, with all of the contact information readily available to them.

Some of the results are indeed very revealing:

While the district has shared it hoped to avoid any one school from being perceived as a disenfranchised school due to the level of low-income students it contains, our results indicate this is in fact not the case. However, it would appear that almost half of all respondents at approximately 45%, affected and unaffected, feel that there IS a school, number or specific school(s) unknown, to avoid due to the level of poor education and educational opportunities it provides! This would appear to be a more pressing issue than balancing SES levels within the schools!

Approximately 88% of respondents believe their children SHOULD, and WANT their children to, attend the school located nearest their home!

Approximately 66% of respondents also indicated the school they were zoned to attend either influenced or somewhat influenced their decision to buy that home! (this indicates this issue is in fact a community-wide issue)

Our results also indicate that approximately 71% of respondents feel they did NOT receive adequate information regarding the bond proposals and possible consequences prior to the proposed boundary change announcements, an almost direct contradiction to the district�s survey that indicated they only had 23% of their respondents feeling they had only "sometimes" and "rarely" received adequate information regarding the bond construction projects (the difference may lie in the fact the district�s survey was conducted prior to residents being notified of the boundary changes whereas our survey was conducted after they were in fact notified of the boundary changes).

A brief outline of the bar charted results for key areas are as follows:

MAJORITY OPINIONS:

71% feel everything they needed to know about the bond construction proposals has NOT been revealed to them.
76% feel they could, however, form an objective and educated opinion on the issues the district faces as a result of the proposal passages IF they were fully informed.
72% believe school boundaries should start with nearest homes first working outward.
79% believe the AASC group should consist of varying socioeconomic groups in order to provide an adequate representation of our entire community.
62% believe the methods for selecting AASC members to be inadequate.
79% believe the numbers of those potentially affected by the passage of the proposals should have been revealed prior to voting on them.
76% believe that either the PBC information was withheld until after the passage of the proposals or are unsure whether they were.
71% do NOT believe the difference of SES levels within the schools currently compared to after either proposal is enough of a difference to make SES balancing a priority.
71% do NOT perceive any one school as a school to avoid due to its low-income levels of students.
55% do NOT perceive any one school as a school to avoid due to the poor level of education or educational opportunities it provides, but 45% DO.
67% believe boundaries should be addressed in a way today to minimize numbers of those potentially impacted cumulatively in the future regardless of SES.
67% believe they should be able to vote on issues arising as a result of an issue already voted on with another 14% being undecided if they should.

COMMUNITY:

88% believe BOTH that their children SHOULD attend, and WANT their children to attend, the school nearest their homes.
74% indicated the school they were zoned to attend influenced and somewhat influenced the decision to purchase their homes.
17% whose children do NOT currently attend the nearest school to their home WANT their children to and believe their children SHOULD, while 23% total do not currently attend the nearest school.

SPECIAL SESSION MEETING AND COMMUNITY OPEN HOUSE OF MAY 15:

34% of eligible respondents actually attended one or both of the May 15 meetings, with those who did not attend citing many reasons for their nonattendance, and some choosing multiple reasons, such as prior commitments, not knowing of the meetings or of the date or time of the meetings, conflicts due to being the sole caregiver in the evenings, not having childcare, the inability to leave work early or to take time off of work, and not attending the meetings due to being unaffected. 55% of eligible respondents feel their concerns were �heard, valued, and taken into consideration� and addressed �completely and adequately,� including the responses from those unaffected.
The other 45% of eligible respondents feel that the meetings were �staged to allow them to feel as if their concerns were valued� and also that their concerns were addressed �not at all.�

CONCERNS:

40% concerned about demands on time having to attend a school further away.
36% concerned about increased gas prices (at the time of this survey) involved with a change of schools.
97% indicate they aren�t ONLY worried about their child having to endure a change of schools.
37% concerned about Little League boundaries differing from school boundaries wherein their children will be in differing leagues (not teams) than their schoolmates, but 26% also indicated they did not know if the 2 zones differed or not..
74% concerned that middle school and high school boundaries weren�t also addressed.
46%, less than half, are aware whether or not their child(ren) have others in their neighborhood of the same age or grade making the proposed change, raising question of importance of neighborhood groups, especially considering Portage consists of very small neighborhoods, sometimes consisting of only a couple of streets and even single streets.

REQUESTS FOR MORE INFORMATION/CLARIFICATION:

71% want a general breakdown of the SES classes of the AASC members, without personal identifying information.
79% wish to know what the SES levels of all classes are within the schools, not just the low-income levels.
86% wish to see what the percentage distribution numbers of SES levels/classes would be if enrollment were based on the closest homes first.
33% want to know why Lake Center construction deemed to not be detrimental to Lake Center students while construction to Waylee was deemed to be so. Another 45% indicated they had not yet viewed the plans at the time of this survey.
66% wish to receive information regarding the importance of socioeconomic balancing within the elementary schools.
71% either erroneously believe the district is trying to balance SES levels strictly for funding purposes or are unsure whether this is the case.
69% either erroneously believe the district is trying to balance SES levels in order to qualify for free- or reduced-meal programs or are unsure whether this is the case.
69% want an explanation as to why their neighborhood is not extended the same rights/courtesy as neighborhoods facing district boundary changes.
48% would like to know how many times boundaries have been changed and how many families have been affected to-date.

NOTIFICATION/COMMUNICATION METHODS:

81% feel the chosen notification methods regarding the proposed boundary changes are inadequate or need improvement.
71% feel they did NOT receive adequate information prior to the proposed boundary changes announcements regarding the bond proposals and the possible consequences.
85% of those receiving the 2nd informational letter mailed to them directly affecting their neighborhood believe the May 15 meeting information to be either deliberately nonobvious and easy to miss or are unsure whether it was.
46% received and read the FIRST letter sent home with their child(ren), and possibly only 40% rightly so after discounting those unaffected who received and read this letter yet including those who received and read it with no idea it could affect them and those who received it but did not read it until much later.
20% of affected respondents either did not receive this FIRST letter or didn�t hear of this letter until taking our survey.
53% received and read this SECOND and MAILED letter containing information regarding affected status and the special session meeting/community open house of May 15, and possibly only 38% rightly so after discounting those unaffected who received and read this letter. Combining those affected who received and read this letter who failed to see it was different and those affected who received and read this letter, only approximately 44% of eligible respondents did rightly receive this letter.
70% indicated they did SEE the information regarding their affected status. However, 57% of these respondents indicated they initially found out elsewhere they were affected possibly making them seek out this information in the letter. It is certainly possible only 43% of respondents saw, on their own, this information.
Another 10% indicated they still did not know whether or not their neighborhood was affected at the close of this survey, 5% of which are in fact affected.
70% indicated they did SEE the information regarding the special session meeting and community open house of May 15. However, 57% of these respondents indicated they found out elsewhere they were affected initially possibly making them seek out this information. It is certainly possible only 43% of these respondents saw, on their own, this information.
19% of those affected who should have received this SECOND letter did not.

Survey Result Charts