Perkiomen Valley SD board hears survey showing mixed school‑climate results, flags discipline disparities

Perkiomen Valley School District Superintendent Dr. Russell briefed the school board on the district's 2024-25 stakeholder survey results and related discipline data, telling the board administrators will ‘‘dive into this summer's data and the open‑ended comments’’ and develop action steps in response.

The presentation showed contrasting trends across stakeholder groups and grades. Staff responses indicated a higher percentage reporting that they feel they belong at their building, while the district saw decreases in some student responses about belonging and inclusion. Parent participation in the survey was low, about 10 percent, and overall staff participation was roughly 36 percent, the superintendent said; more than 2,000 student responses were collected in school settings, which the administration said gave the district a stronger student sample.

Why it matters: board members said the results point to areas for follow up at the building level, including questions about whether differences reflect actual changes in student behavior or changes in awareness and reporting. The board asked administrators to disaggregate data by school, grade and subgroup and to return with recommended next steps and updates to the district's equity action plan tied to policy 8 32.

Key findings and context - Response rates and limits: Dr. Russell cautioned that the survey provides a "flavor" of opinion rather than a fully representative sample; board members noted cohorts and self‑selection mean year‑to‑year comparisons can be imprecise. The district plans focused follow‑up, including building‑level review and possible focus groups. - Bullying and negative interactions: district slides showed decreases in some measures of bullying among staff and parents, but an increase in elementary‑level responses to a question about having been bullied. The superintendent said elementary respondents had higher reported incidence in some items and principals will examine building practices and recordings. - Referral data and PBIS/SWIS source: discipline referral counts were drawn from the district's SWIS/PBIS referral system (the district described these as the k‑5 SWIS referrals for elementary analysis and separate Safe Schools reporting for secondary). Board members were advised that not all minor incidents are uniformly recorded and recording practice can vary by teacher and building. - Disproportionality signals: the district provided examples of subgroup figures. For K–5, the slides cited 17 Asian students accounting for 37 behavioral referrals (reported as about 3 percent of referrals) while Asian students comprise about 6 percent of K–5 enrollment; the slides also highlighted disparities for Black students relative to their population share. Dr. Russell and board members said that principals will examine whether higher referral rates reflect differences in behavior, differences in reporting, or other factors. - Gifted and referrals: district figures presented showed the only behavioral referrals at K–5 were for students identified as non‑gifted; principals will verify recording practice and explore whether referrals for gifted students are being captured consistently. - Course enrollment and subgroup performance: the board reviewed updated slides showing enrollments in honors courses and subgroup representation (the presentation noted totals for cohorts and class sizes so enrollment proportions could be compared). The superintendent said those slides were revised to add clarity about class sizes and subgroup denominators. - Academic proficiency by subgroup: updated slides compared Perkiomen Valley proficiency rates (ELA, math, science) to similar schools in Montgomery County and statewide. The presentation noted variation by subgroup: for example, a cited ELA proficiency figure was 90 percent for Asian students versus 59 percent for Black students and 54 percent for Hispanic students in the district's comparative slide; the superintendent said these gaps prompt targeted goals and actions.

Board discussion and next steps Board members repeatedly stressed that the data prompt questions rather than definitive conclusions. Dr. Russell said building teams and principals will review the disaggregated data this summer and draft action steps; he said administrators had already drafted about 10 tentative goals for the equity action plan that will be refined from this review. The superintendent also noted the district used an AI tool to summarize open‑ended comments but said building teams will verify themes locally rather than rely solely on automated summaries.

The board asked for follow up reporting: principals are to return to the administration with building‑level findings and recommended actions; district staff said updated data presentations will appear in January and the equity action plan will be revised in accordance with policy 8 32.

Ending The board did not take formal policy action on the survey at the meeting; members directed administrators to continue the building‑level review over the summer, produce clarifying materials when available, and present recommended goals and actions to the board in future reports.