2005 Burleson ISD Bond Awareness Survey Results

1
2005 Burleson ISD Bond Awareness Survey Results

• Raymond Turco Associates
• January 2006

2
Survey Methodology

• 400 randomly selected voting households with
  telephone numbers (/- 5)
• Voting history included municipal/school related
  and primary elections
• Study area divided into 4 subsectors
• 8,419 telephone attempts made
• Fieldwork took place 11/30/05-12/10/05
• Average length of interview -- 15 minutes

3
Area Subsectors

• Area I North (Tarrant County portion)
• Area II West (Wilshire Dr.)
• Area III Central
• Area IV South

4
Respondent Profile

• 26 under age 45
• 26 over age 56
• 14 0-7 year resident
• 62 over 15 year resident
• 32 had children in BISD schools 50 did not
  22 had graduates

5
General Attitudes About The District

• Satisfied (51) very satisfied (24) 75
• Dissatisfied (15) very dissatisfied (4) 19
• District wide ratio 3.91
• Subsector ratios 3.11-4.11-5.01-4.61
• Ratio by parental status 5.21 (children in
  school) 4.41 (nonparents) 4.11 (graduates)

6
Comparing Satisfaction With Education Ratings In
Other Districts

• Carroll - 87 (47 very satisfied)
• Grapevine-Colleyville - 88 (37 very satisfied)
• Coppell 84 (32 very satisfied)
• Carrollton-Farmers Branch - 73 (25 very
  satisfied)
• Burleson 75 (24 very satisfied)
• McAllen - 68 (17 very satisfied)
• Sherman - 71 (15 very satisfied)
• Brownwood 66 (12 very satisfied)

7
Education Improvement Rating

• Improved - 45
• Stayed the same - 29
• Declined 15
• Improvement rating similar throughout district
  (43-48-45-41)
• Improvement ratings also similar based on status
  of student 47 of parents of students 45 of
  nonparents 44 of parents of graduates

8
Drawing Conclusions As To Quality Of School
District

• HIGHEST RATED BY IMPORTANCE RATIO
• My own personal experience 90-6, 15.01
• Comparisons with other area school districts
  83-10, 8.31
• I have children in Burleson schools 81-11,
  7.41
• Information from the district 84-12, 7.01

9
Drawing Conclusions As To Quality Of School
District

• LOWEST RATED BY IMPORTANCE RATIO
• Negative editorials/letters to the editor
  50-48, 1.01
• News reports and stories on television 65-30,
  2.21
• Positive editorials/letters to the editor
  67-29, 2.31
• Word of mouth from neighbors and friends
  78-21, 3.71

10
Most Critical Issue Facing School District

• Financing/money issues/management 26
• Overcrowding/growth/lack of facilities 24
• Teacher-related issues/pay/teaching 14
• Quality education/curriculum 11
• Financing/money issues of most concern in Areas I
  and III (30-20-29-25)
• Overcrowding/growth of most concern in Area IV
  (25-19-25-29)
• Nonparents more likely to list financial issues
  (28-23) parents overcrowding/growth (30-20)

11
Issues Considered Critical To School District

• HIGHEST RATED BY AGREEMENT RATIO
• Getting maximum value from school taxes 93-5,
  18.61 (intensity rating 52)
• Keeping computers and computer technology up to
  date 93-5, 18.61 (intensity rating 40)
• Construction of new schools to meet anticipated
  growth in enrollment 90-9, 10.01 (Highest
  intensity rating 41)

12
Issues Considered Critical To School District

• LOWEST RATED BY AGREEMENT RATIO
• Constructing a new central administration
  building to replace current overcrowded facility
  40-51, 0.81
• To begin plans for a new high school 68-24,
  2.81
• Making sure all schools in the district are
  comparable in terms of facilities - 89-9, 9.91

13
Confidence In District Leadership

• Central administration (ratio of 3.81)
• Very high/high 11 57 68
• Very low/low 3 15 18
• Individual campus administration (ratio of
  6.41)
• Very high/high 14 57 71
• Very low/low 2 9 11
• School board (ratio of 1.41)
• Very high/high 7 48 55
• Very low/low 21 18 39

14
Attitudes About School-Related Items Among BISD
Parents

• HIGHEST RATED ITEMS BY QUALITY RATIO
• Teachers 85-13, 6.51
• Computer technology availability and use by your
  student 77-15, 5.11
• Principals/assistant principals 77-19, 4.11
• Maintenance and upkeep of buildings 79-20,
  4.01
• Quality of instruction - 79-20, 4.01
• Most enthusiastic about teachers (43),
  principals and assistant principals (39), and
  quality of instruction (32)

15
Attitudes About School-Related Items Among BISD
Parents

• LOWEST RATED ITEMS BY QUALITY RATIO
• Classroom equipment - 64-29, 2.21
• Campus discipline 67-30, 2.21
• Campus security 72-22, 3.31
• Character development 74-22, 3.41

16
Satisfaction With District Action Statements

• HIGHEST RATED ITEMS BY SATISFACTION RATIO
• Maintaining current facilities 85-8, 10.61
• Addressed student growth 73-20, 3.71
• Do what they say they will do 64-18, 3.61
• Addressed student needs of entire district
  68-20, 3.41

17
Satisfaction With District Action Statements

• LOWEST RATED ITEMS BY SATISFACTION RATIO
• Managing district funds 56-30, 1.91
• Communicated with district residents 63-29,
  2.21
• Planned for future 67-21, 3.21

18
Voting Frequency In 2000 BISD Bond Election

• Yes 67
• No 23
• Most active voters from Area II (54-78-66-62)
• Of those who voted, 47 nonparents 34 parents
  of BISD students 24 of parents of graduates

19
Agreement With Statements About Previous Bond
Election

• The district did what they said they would do
  67-15, 4.51
• The district addressed the needs that were most
  critical at the time 66-25, 2.61
• I have confidence that the district could manage
  another bond program 63-25, 2.51

20
Agreement With Statements About Previous Bond
Election

• The district were good stewards of the funds
  approved by voters 61-25, 2.41
• The district wisely managed the funds approved by
  voters 58-29, 2.01

21
Support For Bond Package In Range Of Up To 100
Million

• Support (28) strong support (14) 42
• Oppose (19) strongly oppose (17) 36
• Undecided 22
• Ratio of support 1.21
• Areas II (42-40) and III (44-23) supportive
  Areas I (41-45) and IV (40-44) not
• People with children in BISD schools more
  supportive (45-30) than nonparents (41-38) or
  parents of graduates (43-34)

22
Determining Voter Threshold Based On Total Amount

• Under 25 million 54-28-18
• 26 - 50 million 34-45-22
• 51 - 75 million 18-59-23
• 76 - 100 million 14-63-23
• 100 - 125 million 11-65-24
• Over 125 million 11-66-24
• Threshold for supporters was 76-100 million
  (51) opponents under 25 million (53)
  undecided voters 49 unlikely at 100-125 million

23
School Improvement Items To Which Bond Funds
Should Be Allocated

• HIGHEST RATED BY SUPPORT RATIO
• Safety and security measures at all campuses
  91-7, 13.01
• Renovation of older district campuses, including
  roofs, heating, and air conditioning - 89-8,
  11.11
• Replace obsolete computers for teachers and
  students - 85-10, 8.51
• Install energy management system at all campuses
  to control utility costs 83-10, 8.31

24
School Improvement Items To Which Bond Funds
Should Be Allocated

• LOWEST RATED BY SUPPORT RATIO
• Construct a new administrative complex on
  centrally located site 33-53, 0.61
• Move the maintenance facility from Kerr Middle
  School to separate site 45-36, 1.31
• Replace and add bleachers at Kerr and Hughes
  middle schools - 56-31, 1.81
• Construct a new high school 68-24, 2.81

25
Support For Construction Of New High School (55
Million)

• Strongly support (21) support (37) 58
• Strongly oppose (11) oppose (17) 28
• Undecided 5
• Ratio 2.11
• Most support in Area III (49-56-69-47) also
  more intense support (18-16-29-15)
• Parents more supportive than nonparents (62-54)
  
• Reasons to oppose construction unnecesary/no
  need (50), mismangement of funds/better
  budgeting (14)

26
Impact Of Factual Statements On Potential Bond
Support

• MOST LIKELY BASED ON RATIO
• Buildings must be maintained/improved to continue
  to be operational 88-10, 8.81
• The district is growing by about 350 students, or
  slightly less than the size of an elementary
  school, each year - 82-13, 6.31
• All campuses should be able to offer students
  comparable programs - 85-14, 6.11
• Being proactive in planning for the future will
  allow the district to better manage funds
  76-16, 4.81

27
Impact Of Factual Statements On Potential Bond
Support

• LEAST LIKELY BASED ON RATIO
• Administrative offices are currently housed in
  three separate facilities throughout the ISD
  48-40, 1.21
• District has successfully managed bond programs
  approved by voters in 1994 and 2000 66-22,
  3.01
• Builders plan on constructing 3,000 new homes in
  the near future 69-21, 3.31
• Burleson High School will meet its maximum
  enrollment size within the next two years
  78-17, 4.61

28
Agreement With Positive Bond Related Statements

• Students need to be provided with the most
  current technology including computers 89-9,
  9.91
• I will support because we must address growth
  79-15, 5.31
• I will support because we must keep facilities up
  to date 79-18, 4.41
• I will support because I like the fact the
  district is actively planning for future -
  70-20, 3.51
• I will support because I trust the district to do
  the right thing for students 61-32, 1.91

29
Agreement With Negative Bond Related Statements

• I will oppose because I dont want taxes
  increasing 35-59, 0.61
• I will oppose because the district has not
  justified its needs 36-54, 0.71
• I will oppose because we need to address teacher
  raises first 44-46, 1.01
• I will oppose because I think 100 million is too
  much money 47-40, 1.21

30
Pre-Test And Post-Test Election Questions Up To
100 Million Bond

• Pre-Test
• Strong support 14
• Support 28
• Oppose 19
• Strongly oppose 17
• Undecided 22
• Ratio 1.21

• Post-Test
• Strong support 12
• Support 39
• Oppose 20
• Strongly oppose 12
• Undecided 16
• Ratio 1.61

31
Comparing Pre-Test And Post-Test Results In Other
Districts
32
Items Most Likely To Be Opposed

• Athletic facilities 36
• Administrative complex 13
• Amount of bond money 12
• Construction/renovation 10
• New high school 8

33
Effectiveness Of District Sources

• MOST EFFECTIVE BASED ON RATIO
• Parents of students 76-18, 3.71
• Faculty members 72-20, 3.61
• Burleson Star - 72-23, 3.11
• School board members 58-29, 2.01

34
Effectiveness Of District Sources

• LEAST EFFECTIVE BASED ON RATIO
• Ft. Worth Star-Telegram 44-49, 0.91
• Neighbors 56-38, 1.51
• Students - 56-34, 1.61
• Campus newsletters 52-30, 1.71
• BISD district web site 52-30, 1.71

35
Likelihood Of People Over 65 Supporting Bond
Election

• Very likely (28) likely (41) 69
• Very unlikely (5) unlikely (8) 13
• Undecided 19
• Ratio 5.31
• Less support in Area II (73-60-72-73) than
  elsewhere
• Seniors opposed in post test more likely than
  unlikely (48-31) also those undecided (47-12)

36
Survey Conclusions

• Voters are satisfied with quality of education,
  both parents and nonparents
• Without information, voters are supportive of
  bond election (42-37) information provided
  caused support to increase 9
• Threshold at 51-75 million, although 100
  million bond package supported
• Voters are supportive of most of the proposed
  improvements, including construction of new high
  school. those opposed to high school felt it was
  unnecessary
• Information provided during course of survey
  caused support to increase significantly

37
2005 Burleson ISD Bond Awareness Survey Results

• Raymond Turco Associates
• January 2006