McFarland district reports strong parent satisfaction but flags gaps for students with disabilities

McFarland School District administrators presented results of the district’s annual parent/guardian satisfaction survey at the May 5 board meeting, saying most indicators rose and many parents reported high satisfaction with safety, facilities and staff.

The survey, conducted in March, had a 20% response rate. District staff cautioned the sample skews by school and by household (multiple family members sometimes submit a single response) and advised caution when comparing year-to-year ranks with similar districts.

District administrator Mr. Tarnitzer told the board that “all four indices increased, and all were above a 4 on a 5‑point scale,” and that the highest scores were for facilities, safety and feeling welcome at school. Tarnitzer said areas that showed strong growth included measures of discipline and student support, and that most index scores were in the 80%–90% agreement range when compared with similar districts.

At the same time, Tarnitzer and other administrators flagged several areas that require continued work. The district’s standardized assessment data show English language arts proficiency rose from roughly 52% to 63% overall, but the gap between students with and without disabilities remains large — about 38 percentage points — and staff identified that gap as the top instructional priority to address through the strategic plan.

Other findings from the presentation: - Participation rate: about 20% of recipients. - Representation: Conrad Elvium Primary School was somewhat overrepresented among respondents; eighth and twelfth grades were underrepresented. - Free and reduced-price lunch respondents were underrepresented relative to the student body (district rate cited around 17%). - Strengths highlighted in open comments included staff caring and individualized support, inclusive climate, and communication improvements. - Growth areas included bullying prevention/consistency of behavior responses, communication channels and clarity, and clarity on grading and homework practices.

Tarnitzer described district follow-up actions tied to the strategic plan and the survey: prioritizing high-leverage instructional strategies (he cited “explicit instruction” as a chosen district strategy), expanding collaborative classroom visits so teachers can observe each other, refining the district’s scope and sequence for diversity/equity/inclusion work, and continuing family-focus groups. On communications, staff noted the tradeoffs parents express — some want a one‑stop source while others want multiple channels — and recommended continued streamlining while maintaining multiple access points.

Board members asked about boosting survey response rates and whether using text alerts could reach more families; administrators said they would explore using text messages for survey distribution to capture families who do not respond to email reminders. Board members also asked whether reductions in summer curriculum or extended‑hours work (discussed elsewhere on the agenda) would materially harm students; administrators said they would report back but cautioned it is difficult to isolate the effect quantitatively.

Why it matters: The survey results feed directly into the district’s five‑year strategic plan and its one‑year action plans and KPIs. Administrators said the data give direction for prioritizing professional development, family engagement work, and districtwide instructional strategies to narrow achievement gaps identified by the survey and standardized assessments.

Looking ahead, district staff said they will continue building on items with positive trends and will present additional detail at future meetings (including staff survey results and further KPI tracking).