Board reviews Panorama spring surveys; discusses safety, low response rates and next steps

During a May 15 workshop preceding its regular meeting, the Bullhead City School District Governing Board reviewed spring Panorama survey results for students, parents and staff and raised concerns about sample sizes and student perceptions of safety.

Board President Melinda Sobrowski opened discussion of the Panorama student results and noted that the aggregated result for grades 3–5 showed 51% of respondents reporting that they feel safe at school. Sobrowski called attention to individual items she found concerning: “I’m a little concerned about how often do you worry about violence at your school… to have 19%. That’s about 1 in 5 kids,” she said.

Superintendent Dr. Stewart and staff member Jennifer (Jen) explained that response rates were low because Arizona legislation now requires parents to opt in to student surveys and to see the survey questions before consenting. Jen said the student survey had a small respondent pool for some grade bands; at one point she noted about 128 student responses for a group and that one school had particularly low participation. Staff explained that parent surveys and student surveys had similar response counts in some groups and that staff surveys produced higher response rates because teachers and certified specialists complete them at a higher rate (the district has about 50 teachers and roughly 165 certified specialists when counselors and other certified positions are included, Jen said).

Board members pressed for more detail on what students meant when they reported not feeling safe. Sobrowski asked whether students’ responses reflected fear of classmates or fear of outside threats: “I would be interested in knowing from the perspective of the students… are they not feeling safe with each other, or are they not feeling safe in the environment, in the school?” she said. Staff said the current Panorama instrument aggregates responses and does not always reveal the thought process behind a given choice; they offered to drill down to school-level breakdowns and to compare like grade bands for a clearer comparison.

Board Member Charlene Diaz asked whether the district makes specific efforts to communicate to parents how important survey participation is. Staff described notification steps used this year — letters home and district social-media posts — but said that because participation requires opt-in consent, response rates remain limited. Sobrowski noted that the legislature’s change from an opt‑out to an opt‑in model had reduced the number of student responses the district typically receives.

Staff also reviewed staff-survey results. Dr. Stewart said staff responses were generally more positive and that, on a wellbeing construct, about 55% of staff responded in higher wellbeing categories, though other items showed frustration and exhaustion consistent with timing (some staff responded shortly before testing). The board discussed using survey results to inform safety- and wellbeing-focused next steps and asked staff to provide school-level breakdowns and to clarify which survey items feed grant-writing and program priorities.

Why it matters: Low response rates can skew survey results; the board asked for more detailed cross-tabulations to determine whether concerns about safety indicate peer-on-peer assaults, environmental concerns, or other issues that could call for different interventions.

What’s next: Staff committed to provide school-level breakdowns by grade band, to report whether specific safety items are clustered by site, and to describe outreach steps to increase parent opt-in participation and to clarify which items are used for grant applications.