Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Referendum topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Survey finds strong community support, about 76% informed backing for West Lafayette school funding referendum
Summary
A 400-response survey of registered voters in the West Lafayette Community School Corporation area found high overall grades for the district (about 80–87% A/B) and roughly 75.8% informed support for an eight-year referendum to offset cuts tied to Senate Enrolled Act 1; consultants described methodology and answered board questions about margin of error and outreach.
Consultants told the West Lafayette Community School Corporation board that a phone survey of 400 registered voters shows broadly favorable views of the district and strong backing for a potential referendum to offset recent state funding changes.
Don Liftoff, a presenter with the firm shown on the slide deck (Morris Leatherman Company), said the survey interviewed 400 registered voters within the district, used 33 questions with an average 10-minute interview, and applied demographic controls for age, gender, parent status and past voting history. "The margin of error is plus or minus 4.8%," Liftoff said, explaining there is a 95% chance the true support among all registered voters falls within that range around the reported percentages.
On basic measures of performance, the survey found very favorable ratings: about 80–87% of respondents gave the school corporation an A or B overall; fewer than 2% gave D grades and no respondents assigned F grades in the sample. Financial management also drew strong marks, with roughly three-quarters (76%) giving A or B ratings.
After being read a short, neutral description of a proposed eight‑year referendum intended to offset cuts associated with "Senate Enrolled Act 1," respondents showed "informed support" of about 75.8% (presenters showed slides with a 70–76% favorable range by subgroup). Liftoff emphasized that the items generating the largest increases in support were maintaining programs for students struggling in core academics and maintaining competitive staff compensation.
Board members asked detailed methodological questions during the presentation. One board member asked about the response rate; Liftoff said the refusal rate was around 10%, which the consultant characterized as a strong response for local school surveys. When asked whether the 2026 results differed materially from the 2023 survey, Liftoff said the two surveys were "very similar" with no major new concerns evident.
Members also asked whether specifying an exact tax rate on the ballot would alter likely outcomes. Liftoff said that specific dollar or rate figures can change responses and that the consultant team will model impacts once the district decides on a specific proposal. The presenters noted limitations in the purchased homeowner/renter database: it identified owner vs renter but did not reliably indicate whether respondents were long-term landlords or short-term/campus-area renters.
The consultants said additional materials are available in the board packet, including full cross-tabulations and summaries of two open‑ended questions for deeper demographic breakdowns. The board took no formal action at the meeting; the presentation concluded and the board adjourned. The district will consider whether to place a referendum question on the November ballot and the consultants offered to help model specific-rate scenarios if the board advances a proposal.
