Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Climate topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
District survey shows mixed results; administrators flag community response bias
Summary
Results from Upper Adams SD's 2024 school climate survey show increases in several staff and student categories, statistically significant gains at the high-school level for social-emotional learning and safety measures, but a notable dip among "community" respondents that presenters said may reflect respondents using the survey to voice opinions about recent board actions.
Upper Adams SD administrators presented results from the districtwide school climate survey and urged building-level review of discrepancies between staff, students and community responses.
Speaker 6 summarized the survey methodology: administered in November to students (third grade and above), staff, parents and community members; scored on a 1—4 scale with 3.4+ considered "favorable." He described three domains used in most responses—student support, social-emotional learning and safe/respectful climate—and emphasized the data are perceptional.
Elementary staff scores rose across categories, Speaker 6 said, and districtwide averages trended up modestly; however, community scores showed a statistically significant dip (differences around 0.13.15) that Speaker 6 attributed in part to confusion about the survey's purpose and some stakeholders using the tool to express opinions about prior board actions rather than the school environment. Speaker 6 said he repeatedly clarified the survey's intent while collecting feedback.
At the middle-school level, social-emotional learning increased while other categories showed minor dips; at the high-school level the overall average and safe- and SEL-related measures rose, with SEL and safe-schools changes reported as statistically significant. Speaker 6 highlighted a discrepancy where staff tended to rate safety higher than students and recommended building-level committees examine the data to design targeted interventions (focus groups, student-council feedback or task groups).
The presenter said the district will use results as part of the comprehensive-plan cycle, take action next year (including reviewing programs such as Rachel's Challenge) and repeat the survey in 2026 to measure the impact of changes.
Board members asked clarifying questions; Speaker 6 said community responses are restricted to those with a relationship to the district (vendors, staff who are not employees, partners) and that some feedback likely reflected strong feelings about board decisions rather than strictly school climate.
The presentation closed with a recommendation that building committees analyze local results and propose steps (program adjustments, targeted safety initiatives) for the comprehensive-plan goal on school climate.
