Litchfield presents perception survey results and 29-step action plan to address communication, staffing and safety concerns

Dr. Doozy, an administrator for the Litchfield Elementary School District, presented the district's perception survey results and proposed actions after surveys of staff, parents/caregivers and students showed mixed trends and recurring themes.

The presentation, which covered surveys administered in November 2024 (staff, parent and student engagement) and department surveys completed in April 2025, reported modest increases in parent/caregiver scores, steady staff scores, and a small decline in student perception scores. Dr. Doozy said the overall staff mean was 3.92 (on a 1— scale) compared with 3.91 the prior year; parent/caregiver scores increased from a 4.18 mean to 4.25; the student mean declined from 3.91 to 3.87. Dr. Doozy said the staff, parent and department surveys also included open-ended responses used for thematic analysis.

The nut graf: district leaders said recurring themes in the qualitative feedback were communication gaps across departments and sites, concerns about resources and staff reductions tied to ESSER fund changes, requests for more training and development, and localized safety and facilities concerns. The presentation tied those findings to a 29-item action plan the district has begun to implement.

Key findings and context

- Participation counts cited by Dr. Doozy: staff participants about 974 in the baseline year and higher this year (noted as a 40% upward trend in participation for staff), parent/caregiver respondents rose from 1,826 (2023) to 1,867 (2024), student responses fell from 6,430 (2023) to 5,934 (2024), and department survey completions rose from 354 to 857 (with a caveat that department tallies are not strictly comparable because respondents self-selected which department survey to complete).

- The staff open-ended themes listed as working well included teamwork/collaboration, communication (site-level), leadership, work environment and clarity of goals. Areas for improvement included cross-department communication, resources (including ESSER-related funding reductions), training and special education support.

- Parent/caregiver open-ended themes highlighted staff and teachers, school-home communication, academic support and programs; concerns included academic supports lost after staffing cuts, facilities (restrooms, fields) and some safety-related comments (bullying and threat incidents).

- Student survey responses (third through eighth grades only) showed small declines on several items; Dr. Doozy noted these surveys do not include sensitive mental-health categories that would require parental permission.

Actions and next steps

Dr. Doozy outlined 29 actions or ongoing projects intended to address the concerns raised by the surveys; examples include: - Site and department-level review sessions to use survey results to set local action steps and PLC work. - Improved district-to-site communication practices (administration commissioned an internal survey and will work over the summer with admin cabinet to define best practices). - A project-management approach to provide timely updates on capital and technology projects and to make progress visible to staff. - Technology upgrades including rollouts of teacher and student devices, replacement projectors, Promethean screens and two-factor authentication improvements (noted earlier in the meeting). - Discipline data analysis and a study-session on threats and police response; evaluation of the recently revised discipline matrix (the board discussed and approved a related item in the meeting). - Development and publication of department standard operating procedures on an internal site to reduce silos and clarify points of contact. - Expansion of parent-grade visibility (parent view) to third through fifth grades to allow families to view grades during the quarter. - Safety measures: continued CPTED (Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design) walkthroughs, site safety committees and a community safety committee, vestibule projects and camera improvements funded by bond dollars. - Professional development and compensation work: continued compensation studies, revised performance-based pay, partnerships for classified staff PD (Grand Canyon University referenced), and revisions to the academic ambassador PD based on feedback.

During Q&A, board members asked about survey timing and participation. Ms. Moran and others questioned the choice to survey in November (midpoint in the year) versus later in the school year; Dr. Doozy said the November window offers a benchmark principals can use to make changes midyear. Board members and administrators agreed more outreach is needed to increase student response rates and to provide school-level breakdowns of participation.

Dr. Doozy also said the district will present more detailed site- and department-level participation counts and will continue implementing the action items over the summer and next year.

Ending: Board members praised the district's use of survey data to drive specific actions and asked for earlier briefings of headline results in future cycles so trustees can follow site progress across the year.