Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Open Enrollment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Survey of families who left district cites bullying, class size and academics as main reasons; 30% might return
Summary
District officials presented a targeted survey of 82 families who had open‑enrolled out; the top reasons families gave for leaving included bullying (about 35%), student achievement and teaching methods (around 22% each), and class‑size concerns. Administration outlined outreach strategies to recruit families back.
The Port Washington‑Saukville School District presented survey results from 82 families who had open‑enrolled out of the district, saying about 21% of contacted households responded. The administration reported 59% of respondents had previously attended district schools before leaving; 49% of those now attend a neighboring public district, 13% are in private schools, 9% are in virtual programs and 8% are homeschooled. The district said 30% of respondents said they would consider returning while 46% said they would not.
Why it matters: district leaders said the findings will shape recruitment and retention efforts during upcoming open‑enrollment windows and in outreach to early‑education families. Officials emphasized that a modest share of families who left report factors the district can act on — namely school climate and course offerings — as reasons they left.
Key findings and district response: Superintendent (identified in meeting materials) reported that bullying was listed by roughly 35% of families as a reason for leaving; the presentation noted that among those who cited bullying about 58% said they were not interested in returning. Student achievement/test scores and teaching methods each appeared on about 22% of the responses for families who said they might return. Class size, transportation and special‑education concerns were also named by smaller shares.
Administration said the district partnered with an outside vendor, School Perceptions, to survey families over a 12‑year lookback. Officials said they received limited open‑ended comments and did not pay for in‑depth qualitative analysis; they plan targeted future surveys at new entrant families (for example 4‑ and 5‑year‑old cohorts) to track reasons families choose the district going forward. The board discussed using a lower‑cost, rolling survey model tied to open‑enrollment periods so the district can track recent decisions without repeatedly surveying the same long‑lookback cohort.
Board reaction and next steps: Trustees thanked staff for the analysis and asked for more granular participation data (weeks of activity, season lengths and per‑activity participant counts) to align budgets and stipends. The administration said it will send a district newsletter and paper copies of the next survey, and it plans to focus on the segment of respondents labeled as likely to return when designing recruitment outreach.
What the district did not say: administrators described the sample as not statistically representative of all families who left and cautioned that limited open responses kept them from producing extensive qualitative analysis. Officials said they will continue to pursue additional responses and refine the sample before making large programmatic changes.
