Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the District Performance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

McFarland district reports survey gains but flags 38% proficiency gap for students with disabilities

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Mr. Tarnitzer presented results from the district’s annual parent/guardian satisfaction survey and connected those findings to the McFarland School District’s strategic-plan update, telling the Board on May 5 that the district saw “a 20% participation rate, which is a little bit lower than last year” but that most indices rose compared with prior years.

Mr. Tarnitzer presented results from the district’s annual parent/guardian satisfaction survey and connected those findings to the McFarland School District’s strategic-plan update, telling the Board on May 5 that the district saw “a 20% participation rate, which is a little bit lower than last year” but that most indices rose compared with prior years.

The presentation showed high scores on facilities, safety and feeling welcome — with districtscale comparisons described as “very high” — and steady increases in measures of communication, parent involvement and student supports. Mr. Tarnitzer also highlighted results the administration called the district’s “biggest area of concern”: assessment proficiency gaps. “The gaps between different subgroups — especially that 38% gap between students with and without disabilities — is the one that we’re really working on,” he said.

Why it matters: Board members and staff said the survey and the district’s key performance indicators (KPIs) feed directly into the district’s five-year strategic plan and the administration’s one-year action plans. Administrators said the results will determine professional development priorities and instructional strategies used across buildings rather than relying solely on pull-out interventions.

Most of the discussion focused on the pattern of strengths and remaining growth areas. Mr. Tarnitzer told the board that nearly all index scores were above 4 on a 5-point scale, and that most item-level agreement percentages were in the 80s and above for positive statements about schools. Specific strengths cited included facilities (high ratings), perceived staff caring and skill, parent opportunities to be involved and a sense that students feel safe at school. Communication scored higher than in prior years but remained an area for refinement: administrators noted parents differ on what they want (email, text, phone, social media) and said the district is working to simplify and clarify messaging while retaining multiple channels.

The presentation also explained subgroup representation and response-rate caveats: Conrad Elvium Primary was slightly overrepresented among respondents and the high school underrepresented; the survey counts individual responses rather than households, which can skew apparent participation rates. Staff also clarified federal program terminology discussed during the meeting: Section 504 plans (for students with impairments who do not qualify for special education under IDEA) were described as separate from IDEA-based individualized education programs and as including accommodation plans such as health plans.

On curriculum and instruction, the administration said the strategic-plan action items will target English language arts and students with individualized educational plans because those areas show the largest gaps. The district described a districtwide “equitable multi-tiered” supports team and said the next year’s high-leverage instructional focus will be explicit instruction and collaborative classroom visits to share proven practice across buildings.

Board members pressed the administration on response rates and representativeness; several asked whether the district could use different outreach (for example, text messages) to increase participation next year. Administrators acknowledged the tradeoffs (texts can flood families and are currently reserved for emergencies) and said they would consider targeted outreach and additional focus groups to reach underrepresented families.

Next steps: The district will use the survey results and KPIs to refine professional development, broaden the district’s explicit-instruction rollout and continue building-level analysis. Staff also said a staff-survey report will come to the board at a later meeting and that building-level follow-ups and focus groups will continue.

Ending: Board members complimented staff on notable gains and asked administration to return with plans for increasing parent participation and with KPIs tied to the explicit-instruction professional development it will deploy next year.