Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the District Survey topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board debates length, structure and question set for districtwide survey
Summary
Board members reviewed the district-wide survey instrument, discussed building-specific questions, comment fields, sample limits and proposed replacements for several learning-and-teaching questions; no final vote was taken but staff were asked to refine wording and structure.
SARTELL, Minn. — Board members spent extensive time reviewing and revising the districtwide survey that the administration plans to field to parents and community members, discussing question order, building-specific branching, comment fields and concerns about privacy and response interpretation.
Board members started from the 2022 survey and debated how to balance comparability with improved question wording. Several members argued for keeping core, short items up front so more respondents reach them; others urged replacing some 2022 items with MSBA-recommended wording to elicit more useful and actionable feedback. One member said the current Likert items produce a lot of “excellent/NA” responses and recommended substituting questions that generate more diagnostic answers.
Key points from the discussion: - Structure: The board discussed branching the survey so respondents first identify their relationship to the district (current building of child, grade) and then see building-specific items; NA options would allow respondents to skip inapplicable blocks. - Comment fields/privacy: Members raised privacy concerns about free-text comments because survey responses may become public records. A suggestion was to include an optional follow-up prompt ("If you would like to discuss your responses further, click here") that routes interested respondents to request a phone call or meeting rather than collect potentially private data in public survey responses. - Question changes: Board members proposed merging and rewording questions about learning and teaching (for example, combining “quality of education” and “engaging instruction” into a clearer item) and moving a small number of district-level items to the front to improve completion rates. - Early childhood and building names: Members discussed listing Oak Ridge Early Learning Center and other site names explicitly to avoid confusion and to allow preschool/ECFE respondents to answer appropriately. - Athletics/referral items: For a proposed facilities/referendum section, members discussed adding multiple-choice options about features (artificial turf, spectator seating, etc.) so the district could better understand preferences ahead of any potential referendum.
No formal vote was taken on final question set or layout. Board members asked staff (Kyle and Mike) to return to a future meeting with a revised draft that collapses some items to shorten the survey, clarifies branching by building/grade, adds NA where needed, and explores platform capabilities for follow-up request routing and privacy protections.
Ending: Staff were directed to draft a revised survey that shortens question length, ensures building-level branching and includes an opt-in follow-up mechanism instead of broadly capturing free-text comments; a revised draft will return to the board for review before deployment.
