Suffolk Public Schools climate survey shows mixed gains, notable declines among high school students; district outlines targeted fixes

Superintendent Dr. John B. Gordon III and data coordinator Shawn Dickerson told the Suffolk Public Schools board on June 11 that the district’s annual climate and culture survey produced mixed results, with notable declines reported by high school students and specific operational concerns for transportation and cafeterias.

"61% of all student survey indicators declined from the previous school year," said Dr. Deborah Walstrom, a public speaker who urged the board to look at system-level patterns rather than single-item scores. Dickerson and Gordon said participation varied by group — roughly 1,500 staff (about 74% participation), 2,900 students (about 54% of eligible students) and 2,100 parents (about 19% participation) — and that lower response rates in some schools affected comparability across years.

The administration highlighted several headline findings. Of the 44 student survey items, presenters said six improved, 11 stayed the same and 27 declined. High school students reported lower agreement rates than the division average on many items; for example, Gordon said the divisionwide agreement that students receive a high-quality education was 84%, while high school respondents reported 74%.

On staff measures, the presentation noted strong scores on teamwork (about 91% of employees agreed they felt encouraged to work as a team) and safety procedures (about 90% reported implemented safety procedures), but also flagged persistent concerns: only about 60% of instructional staff said morale had improved and roughly 58% agreed discipline policies effectively address unwanted behaviors.

District leaders laid out near-term steps the central office will take. Actions include: a review and realignment of school and department leadership groups to bring more voices into decision-making; expanded principal advisory and student leadership groups to elevate student voice; a review of grading and school-level grading practices to improve perceived fairness; targeted summer professional development and a discipline-focused presentation in August from the division’s discipline lead; and contracting an outside routing specialist to address bus routing and driver attendance issues.

Gordon said some districts’ declining student response rates skewed results in specific schools and that in-person follow-ups and targeted polling will be used next year to better capture high school views. He also noted operational improvements already underway, including piloting additional cafeteria service stations and updated bus cameras paid for with public safety funds to help resolve transportation concerns.

Board members pushed on several topics during Q&A. Vice Chair Howell and Board member Sling asked for disaggregated participation counts (instructional vs. non-instructional staff). Dr. Dawn Brittingham and others pressed for details on discipline enforcement; Gordon and Dickerson said part of the issue is uneven understanding of the discipline matrix and pledged clearer training and family communication. Several trustees urged the district to consider budgeting or reallocating local dollars if federal Title funding and current allocations do not meet staffing needs in persistently struggling schools.

The administration said many of the Title I-funded positions (reading specialists, academic coaches, interventionists and paraprofessionals) are continuing in the upcoming year; board members asked for a work session that explains Title I rules, allowable uses and reporting requirements so the board can evaluate whether additional local funding should be directed to more reading specialists or intervention staff.

Next steps: the central office will pursue the actions above and return to the board with updates and the discipline presentation in August.