sat & priorities survey results 14 15 web version2

LAEF Satisfaction & Priorities

Survey 2014-15

Executive Summary

Survey Response• Focus: Program satisfaction in 2014-15 and priorities for 2015-16

• Survey offered in English, Spanish, and Chinese languages

• 1,772 starts and 1,482 completed surveys• Representative sample across schools and grades• Non-donors are under-represented

• Tried tweaking program satisfaction rating scale choices to obtain additional qualitative data

• Survey responses similar to 2013-14• Parents satisfied overall with funded programs, continue to desire

small class sizes and more PE• Strong support for continuing the Innovation Grant

Executive Summary

Year 5 of $1,000 per student suggested donation level

Donation Attitudes• Respondents expect all families to donate what they can afford, with broad

understanding that not all families are able to donate at the “ask”

• “District Counts on Me” remains the predominant reason that donors give

• Among respondents, 92% report they donate annually

Program Satisfaction

• Parents remain satisfied with programs

- Some shift from “Satisfied” to “Neutral”, possibly due to question wording or complacency with established programs

- No significant change in “Dissatisfied” ratings

• Parents continue to value K-3 class student:teacher ratio reduction, and would like even smaller class sizes

• Overall satisfaction at Jr. Highs is high for core class size reduction and electives offered

- Parents still want to fund both

Executive Summary

Pressure Points

Class Sizes - Parents continue to desire small classes and many would like even smaller classes, especially in TK-3

PE - Parents continue to ask for more PE in all grades

Jr. High Electives - Parents would like to have expanded elective offerings and more flexibility in choosing electives, question need for library

Executive Summary

Executive Summary

Board & Grant-Making• Majority of parents give LAEF Board good rating on communication about

funding and reasons to give• Majority of parents believe LAEF grant is distributed fairly between

schools and grade levels • Parents are still unclear about how LAEF works with District to develop

LAEF grant and how funds are allocated

Funding & Fundraising• Most parents remain committed to supporting high-quality, well-rounded

education (smaller class sizes, enrichment programs) via donations• While committed to high quality public education, parents still desire

changes to public education funding

Action Items

CommunicationAs in previous years, many comments indicate lack of information about LAEF programs and funding• Ongoing challenge for LAEF Board to remain visible on campus, improve

outreach to school communities

Investigate Program changes with District:• PE - Consider increasing PE time in all elementary grades

• Jr. High - Consider offering additional electives in Cooking/Home Economics and Drama/Arts, more flexibility in choosing electives

Survey Participation

Who took the survey?

300300300300300

n = 1,749

Almond Covington Gardner Egan Loyola Oak Santa Rita Springer

0

67.5

135

202.5

270257

226208

200

172

269267

232

210

Blach

Are all populations represented?

# of Families % Population # of Response % of Responses over/under Representation

Almond 397 15.8 210 13.9 -1.9%

Covington 414 16.6 267 17.6 1.0%

Gardner Bullis 229 9.1 172 11.4 2.3%

Loyola 351 14.0 200 13.2 -0.8%

Oak 309 12.3 208 13.7 1.4%

Santa Rita 436 17.4 226 14.9 -2.5%

Springer 370 14.8 257 17.0 2.2%

Blach 491 45.4 232 51.3 5.9%

Egan 590 54.6 269 48.7 -5.9%

Survey sample proportional to actual elementary enrollment +/- 3%. Junior Highs- Egan is under-represented

Historic Satisfaction & Program Survey

Participation

Survey Starts Completes Complete %2011 S&P 1927 1525 0.792012 S&P 1496 1237 0.832013 S&P 1489 1237 0.832014 S&P 1707 1456 0.852015 S&P 1772 1485 0.84

Note: “Completes” equals respondents who click “Done”. Effective completion rate even higher.

Donation Attitudes

Which statement best represents your attitude about donating to LAEF?

0%

13%

25%

38%

50%

Non Donor Tax Deduction Not High Priority Try Every Year Count on Me Every Family

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

n = 1,576

“Counts on Me” response captures strongest sense of community “greater good” While respondent pool changes over time, attitudes are highly consistent

Which statement best represents your attitude about donating to LAEF?

Comments

Top Themes Comments Share

We Donate Every Year 16 18%

Every Family Should Contribute 16 18%

More Important Causes 11 12%

n = 104

How is LAEF doing?

Rate LAEF Board Members

n = 1,527

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

The LAEF Board of Directors strives to represent all of the families in our school district. Please read the following statements and provide a rating that reflects your thoughts/feelings about LAEF.

LAEF Board members are parents like me who are interested in

keeping our schools strong.

LAEF Board members at my school are accessible and open to hearing

my input.

LAEF Board members effectively communicate with the parent community on funding issues.


Compliment 13 18%

Don’t Know LAEF Representatives 10 14%

Improve Communication 8 11%

n = 72

Rate LAEF Board Members Comments

LAEF Grant Attitudes

n = 1,496

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%


The LAEF Board of Directors strives to create a balanced grant. Please read the following statements and provide a rating that reflects your thoughts/feelings about the LAEF grant.

LAEF grants are spread fairly across all the SCHOOLS in our district.

LAEF grants are spread fairly across all GRADES in the district so that all

students benefit equally.

LAEF's current level of fund raising and funding to the school district is

about right.


Raise More 11 9%

Trust Board 7 6%

Lack Visibility 7 6%

n = 123

LAEF Grant Attitudes Comments

Most comments (49) restated “I don’t know.”

Satisfaction Ratings

Elementary Satisfaction Ratings2014 2015

Teacher:Student Ratio 5.4% 2.9% 4.3% 2.7% 4.7%Library 0.8% 2.6% 2.9% 2.2% 1.9% 2.2% 3.3%

Art Docents 2.9% 3.9% 3.4% 2.2% 1.5% 3.5% 5.1%Living Classroom 3.3% 2.2% 3.9%

PE 6.2% 6.0% 0.0% 6.1% 5.8% 5.4%Small Group 2.8% 3.5%

STEM 2.5% 4.0% 3.6% 2.2% 5.0% 2.9% 2.7%Music 7.5% 8.2%

cSTEM 6th Grade 0.0% 3.9%

Program K 1-3 4-6 TK K 1-3 4-6Teacher:Student Ratio 88.0% 90.9% 76.1% 87.5% 84.1%

Library 89.6% 89.5% 86.1% 64.4% 82.5% 78.8% 73.1%Art Docents 77.3% 78.3% 79.0% 50.0% 55.4% 63.0% 61.6%

Living Classroom 74.2% 78.9% 75.3%PE 79.1% 82.5% 65.2% 59.8% 72.0% 77.6%

Small Group 82.7% 61.5%STEM 80.4% 86.0% 84.7% 71.7% 71.6% 85.9% 84.2%Music 77.9% 71.1%

cSTEM 6th Grade 80.9% 71.3%

Satisfied

Dissatisfied

Observed overall shift in ratings from “Satisfied” to Neutral/Don’t Know, likely due to change in ratings categories

Jr. High Satisfaction Ratings

Program 2014 2015Science CSR 88.6% 68.6%

Math CSR 87.9% 72.9%

Soc. Studies CSR 86.1% 61.1%

English CSR 88.7% 66.4%

Library 76.0% 48.5%

Electives 81.8% 73.6%

Satisfied

Dissatisfied

Similar shift in ratings from “Satisfied” to Neutral/Don’t Know, likely due to change in wording of

ratings categories

Science CSR 3.3% 2.9%

Math CSR 3.6% 3.1%

Soc. Studies CSR 2.5% 2.3%

English CSR 3.4% 4.3%

Library 4.8% 3.6%

Electives 5.2% 3.4%

New Question: “Perfect Day”

“Perfect Day”

If you could design your student’s perfect elementary school day, which enrichment programs would it include (beyond the core curriculum of math, reading/writing, social studies and science)?

0

22.5

45

67.5

90

Music STEM PE Language Visual Arts Computer Dance Drama

TK/Kinder Grades 1-3 Grades 4-6 Jr Highn=322 n=761 n=810 n=476

Grade # Comments Top Categories

Transitional Kinder 2 #1 - Social-Emotional Development

Kindergarten 25 #1 - Social-Emotional Development#2 - Spanish/Language#3 - Speaking Skills

Grades 1-3 54 #1 - Speaking Skills#2 - Social-Emotional Development

Grades 4-6 73 #1 - Foreign Language#2 - Differentiation#3 - Emotional Health

Junior High 64 #1 - Home Economics#2 - Existing Program#3 - Speaking Skills

Perfect Day “Other”

Transitional Kindergarten and Kindergarten

Transitional Kindergarten Program Ranking

n = 47

Please rank the following LAEF-funded Kindergarten/Transitional Kindergarten programs in importance to your family. **The cost to deliver each program to every Kindergarten and Transitional Kindergarten student at all 7 elementary schools is listed in parentheses.**

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

1 Most Important

2 3 4 5 Least Important

Reduce Class Size Art Docent Lessons Library Physical Education Specialist STEM


Smaller Classes/More Aides 5 63%

More PE 2 25%

STEM 2 25%

n = 8

TK Program Ranking Comments

Transitional Kindergarten Program Satisfaction

n = 47

How satisfied are you with the following LAEF-funded Transitional Kindergarten programs?

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Dissatisfied: Don't need it Dissatisfied: Needs Overhaul Not Familiar with ProgramNeutral Satisfied: Like it, but could be improved Satisfied: Love it! Great value

Reduce Class Size from 30 to 25 or less

Art Docent Lessons

Library

Physical Education Specialist - 1x week

STEM (Science/Technology/Engineering/Math)


Smaller Class Sizes 2 29%

STEM 2 29%

n = 7

Transitional Kindergarten Satisfaction Comments

n = 47

TK Student:Teacher Ratio Reduction

LAEF spent $480,000 (or 16% of its grant) on reducing student:teacher ratios in grades K-3. To reduce class size from 30 to 25 or less costs $120,000 for Kindergarten and Transitional Kindergarten.

Do you agree that this is the best use of your donation?

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%




n = 4

TK Student:Teacher Ratio Reduction Comments

TK Additional Modifications

What other suggestions or modifications would you like to see in your child’s school day?

Top Categories Comments Share


More PE/Movement 3 38%

More Play 2 25%

n = 8

Kindergarten Program Ranking

n = 268

Please rank the following LAEF-funded Kindergarten/Transitional Kindergarten programs in importance to your family. **The cost to deliver each program to every Kindergarten and Transitional Kindergarten student at all 7 elementary schools is listed in parentheses.**

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

1 Most Important

2 3 4 5 Least Important

Reduce Class Size Art Docent Lessons Library Physical Education Specialist STEM



More PE/Better PE 4 19%

STEM is Important 2 10%

Library Not Needed 2 10%

n = 21

Kindergarten Program Ranking Comments

Kindergarten Program Satisfaction

n = 265

How satisfied are you with the following LAEF funded Kindergarten programs?

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%



Art Docent Lessons

Library




Improve PE 7 28%


STEM Not Important 4 16%

STEM is Important 2 8%

n = 25

Kindergarten Program Satisfaction Comments

n = 267

Kindergarten Student:Teacher Ratio Reduction

LAEF spent $480,000 (or 16% of its grant) on reducing student:teacher ratios in grades K-3. To reduce class size from 30 to 25 or less costs $120,000 for Kindergarten and Transitional Kindergarten.


0% 25% 50% 75% 100%




Happy with Small Class Size 6 30%

n = 20

Student:Teacher Ratio Reduction Comments

Kinder Additional Modifications



More Play 5 10%

More Recess/Breaks 5 10%


Differentiation 4 8%

Project Cornerstone 4 8%

n = 49

Grades 1-3

Grade 1-3 Program Ranking

n = 749

Please rank the following LAEF-funded grade 1-3 programs in importance to your family. **The cost of to deliver each program to every grade 1-3 student at all 7 elementary schools is listed in parentheses.**

0%

17.5%

35%

52.5%

70%

1 Most Important

2 3 4 5 6 Least Important

Reduce Class Size Art Docent Lessons LibraryPhysical Education Specialist Small Group Instruction STEM


All Are Important 25 39%

Class Size Most Important 13 20%

Art 10 16%

n = 64

Grade 1-3 Program Ranking Comments

Grade 1-3 Program Satisfaction

n = 733Small Group = 491

How satisfied are you with the following LAEF-funded programs provided to your child(ren) in grades 1-3.

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%



Art Docent Lessons

Library

Physical Education

Small Group Instruction Time, Grades 1 & 2



More PE 19 24%

Smaller Class Sizes 11 14%

STEM 11 14%

Grade 1-3 Program Satisfaction Comments

n = 78

n = 740

Grade 1-3 Student:Teacher Ratio Reduction

LAEF spent $480,000 (or 16% of its grant) on reducing student:teacher ratios in grades K-3. To reduce class size from 30 to 25 or less in grades 1-3 costs $360,000.


0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Stongly Agree


Small Classes a High Priority 61 75%

Reduce Class Sizes More 23 28%

Differentiated Learning 18 22%

Student:Teacher Ratio Reduction Comments

n = 49

Grade 1-3 Additional Modifications



PE/Movement 18 14%

Language 18 14%

Art 13 10%

Longer Day 11 9%

n = 125

Grades 4-6

Grade 4-6 Program Ranking

n = 749

Please rank the following LAEF-funded grade 4-6 programs in importance to your family. **The cost of to deliver each program to every grade 4-6 student at all 7 elementary schools is listed in parentheses.**

0%

15%

30%

45%

60%

1 Most Important


Physical Education Specialist Library Art Docent LessonsInstrumental & Vocal Music STEM cSTEM


All Are Important 20 23%

Art 17 19%

Music 14 16%

n = 88

Grade 4-6 Program Ranking Comments

Grades 4-6 Program Satisfaction

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%



Library

Art Docent Lessons

Instrumental and Vocal Music


cSTEM- grade 6

How satisfied are you with the LAEF-funded programs provided to your children in grades 4-6?

n = 793n = 258 cSTEM

Grades 4-6 Program Satisfaction


Music 27 33%

PE 22 27%

Art 16 19%

n = 83

Instrumental & Vocal Music

LAEF provided $315,000 for Instrumental and Vocal Music for students in grades 4-6 at all 7 elementary schools this year. How satisfied are you with the LAEF-funded Music Programs in grades 4-6 this school year?

n = 558 - 621

4th grade - Weekly Vocal Music (Fall) / Recorder (Spring)

5th grade - Twice weekly Instrumental Music (1st semester Vocal and Instrumental, 2nd

semester Instrumental)

5th grade - Twice weekly Vocal Music (if your student is not in Instrumental Music)

6th grade - Twice weekly Instrumental Music

6th grade - Twice weekly Vocal Music (if your student is not in Instrumental Music)

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%


Instrumental & Vocal MusicComments


Want More Music 17 18%

Improve Music Program 14 15%

n = 96

Grade 4-6 Additional Modifications



Foreign Language 9 12%

Differentiation 8 11%

Emotional Health 7 10%

n = 73

Junior High

Jr. High Program Ranking

n = 464

Please rank the following LAEF funded Junior High programs in importance to your family. **The cost of to deliver each program to every Junior High student at Blach and Egan is listed in parentheses.**

0%

15%

30%

45%

60%

1 Most Important


Science CSR Math CSR Social Studies CSR English CSR LibraryElectives


Class Size Reduction 18 53%

Library 7 21%

Teacher Quality 4 12%

n = 34

Jr. High Program Ranking Comments

Jr. High Program Satisfaction

Each year LAEF designates 20% of its grant to the 2 Junior Highs, which represent 20% of the district students. How satisfied are you with these LAEF-funded programs for this school year?

n = 452

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%


Science CSR

Math CSR

Social Studies CSR

English CSR

Library

Electives


Electives 23 44%

Teacher Quality 11 21%

Class Size 8 15%

n = 52

Junior High Program Satisfaction Comments

Did your Junior High Student receive one of their top 3 electives choices?

n = 470

0

75

150

225

300

Blach Egan

No I don’t know Yes

n = 29

Junior High Elective Comments


Elective Process 14 48%

Received Elective Not Requested 5 17%

Junior High Additional Electives

n = 119

Are there additional electives that you would like to see offered?Top Themes Comments Share

Programming/Coding/STEM 39 33%Cooking/Home Economics 30 25%Drama/Arts 18 15%

LAEF Funding to Jr. High

n = 1485

Would you prefer your LAEF donation be spent on core class size reduction, a greater selection of electives, or a combination of both?

0%

17.5%

35%

52.5%

70%

Core Class Sizes Electives Both


Electives 13 54%

Class Size Reduction 9 38%

n = 24

LAEF Jr. High Funding Comments

Jr. High Additional Modifications



More Choice 12 16%

Homework 10 13%

Electives 10 13%

Language 8 11%

n = 75

Innovation Grant

Innovation Grant Awareness

n = 1606

The Los Altos School District is a recognized leader in education. This year, LAEF allocated $820,000 towards an Innovation Grant, which funds innovative learning and interactive classrooms. This includes:

* STEM Teachers at each elementary school * STEM Coach to bring more Science, Engineering, Technology and Math to all K-8 classrooms* Technology Integration Coach to assist in designing the iLearn professional development

program and support teachers integrating technology in all K-8 classrooms* cSTEM weekly lessons for 6th graders that introduce them to computer programming and a

variety of computer applicationsWhich statement best describes your awareness of these programs:

0

275

550

825

1100

Not Aware Somewhat Aware Very Aware


Need More Information 26 24%

Innovation Grant is Great 24 22%

Aware/Somewhat Aware 21 20%

cSTEM 13 12%

n = 107

Innovation Grant Awareness Comments

Innovation Grant Continuation

n = 1592

Programs like those funded by the Innovation Grant typically require the investment of resources over several years to realize measurable results. While exposure to these programs will vary based on your child's grade, how important is it to continue funding our Innovation in Education Grant?

0

275

550

825

1100

Not Important Somewhat Important Extremely Important

n = 82

Innovation Grant Continuation Comments


Very Important 37 45%

Not Enough Information/Too Soon to Tell 29 35%

Spending Balance 14 17%

Contribute More to Future Innovation Grants?

n = 1483

Would you be willing to make an additional donation to seed the development of future Innovation Grants?

0

275

550

825

1100

No Depends on the Grant Yes


Depends on the Grant 23 34%

$1000 is Enough—Maxed Out Already 15 9%

Prefer Non-Technology Programs 9 5%

n = 67

Contribute More for Future Innovation Grant Comments

Innovation Grant Evidence

n = 1585

Have you seen/heard evidence of innovative teaching approaches being utilized in your student's classroom?

0

225

450

675

900

No I Don't Know Yes


Technology Examples 30 19%

Application/Online Examples 24 15%

Don’t Know 20 12%

Responsive Classroom 16 10%

n = 162

Innovation Grant Evidence Comments

Innovation Grant Impact

n = 1577

Have these innovative teaching approaches in the classroom improved your student's engagement and depth of learning?

0

225

450

675

900

No I Don't Know Yes


Yes, See Benefits Already 45 40%

Don’t Know/Too Soon To Tell 33 29%

No Impact or Negative Impact 11 10%

n = 113

Innovation Grant Impact Comments

Future Innovation Grants

n = 162

Are there other areas that you would like to see addressed in future Innovation Grants?


Technology/Computer Skills 25 15%

Math 18 11%

Music & Arts 15 9%

Differentiated Learning/GATE 15 9%

Hands-on/Project-Based Learning 15 9%

Action Items

Action Items

Communications:

• LAEF Board members need to continue to be visible on campus and reach out to their school communities- Each campus should create their own action plan

• Continue efforts to deliver consistent communications about LAEF programs at all schools; try new ways to increase visibility of programs and their benefits

• Consider using a different approach to communicate with our multi-lingual community

• Stress participation message

Action Items

Investigate Program changes with District:

• PE - Consider increasing PE time in all elementary grades

• Jr. High Electives - Consider offering Cooking/Home Economics and Drama/Arts electives, more flexibility in choosing electives

Thank You!Thank you for taking the time to read our survey results!

Please note that although a lot of time and energy was put into making this the best survey possible, we are volunteers and this is not our field of expertise! The statistical accuracy of this survey has not been verified by a professional. In many cases the sample size from a particular question/school/grade level may be too small to draw conclusions from. All these factors should be taken into account as you read the results.

-The volunteers of the LAEF Board

sat & priorities survey results 14 15 web version2

Documents

pe parents

majority of parents

high electives parents

laef programs

laef grant

dissatisfied ratings

grade levels parents

small class sizes