Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Community Engagement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Survey finds mixed support for district priorities; board flags safety, wants deeper breakdown
Summary
The district’s May community conversation drew nearly 2,000 participants and found generally flat favorability across most measures, but a rotating question about generating roughly $5 million drew 56% favorable, 21% unsure and 23% opposed.
Tiffany Olsen, the district’s director of communications and strategic development, presented high-level results from the May 1–23 community conversation at the June 9 meeting, saying the process generated nearly 2,000 participants and an above‑goal Spanish‑language participation rate.
Olsen emphasized the data are an “unbiased first look” and statistically nonsignificant for inferring causation, but she highlighted recurring themes in open-ended feedback: student supports (including discipline and classroom support), interest in real-world or life-skills education, and stronger teacher support and staffing.
On the rotating topical question—framed as a scenario that would generate roughly $5,000,000 in new revenue—about 56% of respondents indicated they “strongly favor” or “favor” the concept, 21% said they were “unsure” and roughly 23% said they opposed it. Olsen reported common open-ended asks from respondents: detailed budget and spending plans, clear impacts on students and teachers, accountability measures, and more community engagement before final decisions.
Board members focused on two findings. Trustee Christy (surname not specified in the transcript) asked whether the district could disaggregate “student support and discipline” concerns by grade level; Olsen said staff can run cross-tabulations to identify whether those comments are concentrated in elementary, middle or high schools and to show whether respondents had children in the district. Several trustees also raised safety and security: trustees noted a recent incident in the community and asked staff to analyze whether negative safety responses reflected events inside school buildings, social media or broader community perception. Olsen said staff can run an "x/y" cross‑tab analysis and return with the open‑ended comments tied to specific response groups.
Why it matters: The community conversation provides board members qualitative and quantitative feedback the district can use to shape levy messaging and program priorities. Several trustees said the results reinforce the need for clear explanations of any levy proposal’s spending plan, accountability, and how revenue would affect classroom experiences and safety resources.
Actions and next steps: Olsen and staff will produce more detailed cross‑tabulations by grade band and respondent type, and return to the board at the August board development session with deeper analysis and suggested communications strategies.
