Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Workplace Climate topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Staff climate survey shows generally positive results; district to pursue site‑level action plans
Summary
District officials reported a 72% response rate from regular staff on the fall climate survey, with strengths in peer and supervisor relationships, consistent net promoter scores around +30 and site‑level action planning to address communication and workload concerns.
Waunakee Community School District administration reported results from a fall staff climate survey to the Human Resources Committee, saying the instrument drew responses from about 72 percent of regular employees and showed generally positive results alongside identifiable areas for improvement.
"We invited all staff, regular staff...665 individuals this year. We received a response rate of 72%," said Brian, the presenter. The district disaggregated results by certified staff, support staff and by building and said the survey covered relationships, communication, culture and professional development using 20 to 30 questions.
Administration said consistent strengths across buildings included peer‑to‑peer and peer‑supervisor relationships and pride in the workplace. Areas for improvement centered on communication and decision‑making — respondents distinguished between district‑level and building‑level decisions — workload and limited pathways for advancement in a school system where administrative slots are few.
District staff said each building receives its own data and that building leadership teams are producing site‑specific action plans. The presenter said he met with every building by mid‑January to review results and that where needed, buildings have begun implementing changes. He described a net promoter score — a single metric asking whether employees would recommend working for the district — that has been about +30 for the last two years, with some buildings above +50.
Committee members asked whether all buildings had received their results; staff said the data were distributed and asked the board to flag any sites that reported not receiving them so staff could follow up. The district plans to re‑assess implementation in May by checking on building‑level actions and their reception by staff.
The committee did not take formal action; staff said they would continue to support building committees in developing targeted responses to site‑level concerns.
