Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Engagement Survey topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
District presents student, parent and staff engagement survey findings; students show lowest engagement
Summary
A district consultant presented 2024–25 engagement survey results: 1,818 student responses (37.5% in top tiers), 560 parent responses, and 228 staff responses; students reported strengths in staff interactions and extracurriculars and indicated opportunities in learning goals and personal choice in learning.
District staff presented the results of the 2024–25 engagement surveys for students, parents and staff and answered board questions about administration and response rates.
Presenter Candace summarized how the survey index and tiers work and reported response counts: 1,818 student responses, 560 parent responses and 228 staff responses. She said 37.5% of students fell into tier 1 or 2 (the higher engagement tiers), while parents had the largest share of respondents in tiers 1–2. Staff spring scores, she said, declined from fall (69.8% in fall to 60.6% in spring), which she described as typical.
Candace identified student strengths as interactions with school staff, students’ ability to problem‑solve and participation in extracurriculars. Areas for improvement from the students’ perspective included interactions with peers, clarity and tracking of learning goals and greater personal choice in how they learn. Candace explained the learning‑goal questions: whether students set goals with teachers, whether they track goals, and whether the goals motivate learning—she said tracking and motivation were weaker.
Board members asked about survey timing, response counts and whether the district could capture breakdowns of how staff split time between administrative and teaching functions; the presenter said staff surveys are administered in November and April, parent and student surveys in January (with student responses often collected from mid‑January to mid‑February). Board members noted pilot programs such as weekly parent notification emails from high‑school students and discussed whether those practices should continue; staff said the pilot increased parent information and encouraged student ownership of academic progress.
Board members also requested that staff share detailed survey response tables and recommended the high‑level presentation used at the meeting with deeper data for board review. "The student climate survey had 1,818 students," Candace said when asked for response counts.
