Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Culture Survey topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board hears culture‑climate survey results; members debate access to raw open‑ended responses and redaction
Summary
Superintendent Dr. Russell presented spring 2025 culture‑climate survey results for students, staff and parents; board members pressed for access to the full open‑ended responses, administration said redaction may be required to protect individuals and will provide a redacted version and the full report to the board under agreed conditions.
Superintendent Dr. Bryan Russell summarized results from a district culture‑climate survey administered in spring 2025 to students in grades 4–12, staff across eight buildings and parents. He said the presentation showed aggregated metrics and that disaggregated data had been provided to building principals.
"We administered the survey in our student stakeholder group to grades students in grades 4 through 12," Russell said, explaining the sample and noting that percentages in the slides represented combined "agree" and "strongly agree" responses rounded to whole numbers.
The presentation reported generally positive results on some measures — for example, around 92% of staff said their schools have appropriate plans in place to address building safety — but also identified areas of concern. Russell told the board roughly 20% of secondary students indicated they had been bullied; approximately 49% reported seeing bullying. He also highlighted disparities in perceptions of belonging and that books and learning materials reflecting students— identities were lower in elementary grades.
Board members asked for access to the raw open‑ended responses. Russell said board members could have access but raised confidentiality concerns: some comments named teachers or principals and could require redaction. "You can absolutely have access to the survey," Russell said, adding, "I'll work on redacting the data and then I'll share with the board if that's the will of the board." He suggested an agreed redacted version as a starting point.
Members also asked about methodology and response rates: Russell confirmed the staff population is large (several hundred employees) and that response rates for staff were not high, which limited how definitive some findings could be. He said administration had used prior examples where the open‑ended comments were summarized using an external AI tool for initial synthesis but that any such use required care to avoid introducing bias.
Board members asked for deeper analysis and comparisons to prior years; Russell said the district would provide comparative data next week. He also recommended that the equity action plan and education updates incorporate survey findings.
The presentation prompted extended board discussion about whether the slides and examples presented represented themes or isolated comments, and about how administration should balance transparency with privacy and personnel processes. Russell and staff agreed to prepare a redacted open‑ended dataset for board review and to follow up with further disaggregated analyses.
