Future Facilities Survey results posted

Scott Leopold has informed me that the survey results for the Future Facilities are out there for all of you to view:

 

Also, the results of the Fallon focus groups will be presented along with the background report at tomorrow’s Steering Team meeting. I am told the meeting is open for the public as observers; if you would be so kind as to let Stephanie Stuart (217-531-0252, stuartst@champaignschools.org) know you are coming, she will make sure there are enough chairs set out for all of us. And yes, I plan to go and blog about it.

Steering Committee Meeting #3: Monday, December 17th 6:00pm @ Dr. Howard Elementary

 

Please look over the data so far and let any of us (me, Stephanie, Scott) know your thoughts. Of course, I am just a tad biased and hope you post your thoughts here. *grin*

 

PS – I am quite aware that there are those of you who are not so happy with the money we are spending on this Public Engagement firm. As I have stated previously, I very much welcome different opinions and in fact, I openly invite those who disagree. My own excitement stems mostly from the fact that some real data has been released and we now get a chance to look it over through our own lens.

9 Responses to “Future Facilities Survey results posted”

  1. charlesdschultz Says:

    “The purpose of this executive summary is to share some genereral [sic] observations regarding the results of the questionnaires as they relate to the future facilities process.”

    Summary of “Results Report” (not Cliff notes – just an overview):
    – 103 pages
    – an amazing 1327 total responses, 1181 of which were online!
    – the summaries provided on pages 1-3, and further aggregated on 4-15 strike me as “weird”. I’ll talk more about it below
    – appendix starts on page 24, gives all the “write-in” responses for the open-ended questions; contains 14 totally blank pages, plus 3 with a one sentence question; reading the scanned-in copies of people’s real handwriting is going to be fun.

    The reported findings from the “group discussions” strike me as “weird” for a couple reasons. DeJong specifically said “[t]he intent of these discussions was to reach consensus on as many of the topics as possible”, and I know at our table we hardly reached consensus on a number of items, so it looks like our input was not counted as a group. Also, keep in mind that DeJong put up big sheets of paper to tally group responses at the end of the conference; this is a good way to broadcast out what the groups thought. I wish the “no consensus” responses were recorded in the reports findings. Personally, I prefer to look at the individual responses because that tells a much richer story. In fact, I am going to go out on a limb and I bet that if one carefully analyzed the individual responses, it would not be hard to spot a few cases where the results differed significantly from the group responses.

    But perhaps the most jarring thing is that these questions give the impression that this is what the people want. For example, the 2nd bullet on page 1 reads:
    “Class sizes should remain low in the elementary schools, and can be larger in middle and high schools.”

    Should? Can be? How many people answering these questions actually know what is best? I sure as heck don’t, and I have been to a ton of meetings. 🙂 There are plenty of other examples on this track, due to the way the questions were asked. I am of the opinion that perhaps the most valuable information lies in the open-ended questions. Unfortunately, those are much harder to mine (let alone read in some cases) (note to self – work on better penmanship). But this is what we pay a PE firm for, right?

    I am still amazed that 1181 filled out the online questionnaire. Wow!

    Here is another big thing to keep in mind – from page 3:

    Next Steps
    The questionnaire results will be included in the Background Report. The Steering Committee will use the results when devoping [sic] facility options. After options are developed, they will be presented at the Community Dialogues on February 12, 2013.”

    Here is what bothers me. Is this the only major push to find out what people want? Meaning, in practice is this (the Results Report) going to be the Voice of the people? I have a couple of red flags going off in my head if this is the case, and I need to chew on it some more to put a finger on it. My gut is screaming out to throw away the entire canned section of the questionnaire and only go with the open-ended section. I am trying to decide how reasonable that is.

    EDIT: I just remembered Fallon is going to be making 500 phone calls. So there will be more input. To a degree.

  2. pattsi Says:

    It is so easy to scan anything written on large newspaper sheets on a drum scanner. Best way to preserve the integrity of what is said and written at any session rather than collapse down to a summary, which by the very nature of a summary has an inherent bias.

  3. charlesdschultz Says:

    Start reading at page 32. Tell me what you think.

  4. Karen Says:

    Is there a way we can access all open-ended answers? What they include in this report in the Appendix is incomplete, right?

  5. charlesdschultz Says:

    @karen: It was my impression that what they included was everything. But it’s hard to tell. I’ll ask.

  6. charlesdschultz Says:

    @Karen, here is what Scott says:

    “Thanks for the catch, Not sure what happened, It looks like the PDF export didnt grab all of the images. The report has been updated to include all of the open ended comments. (Fixing the blank pages problem)

    The only comments that were not included in the report are those first open ended questions that were intended to get the groups talking during the first meeting.

    Later this morning I will add them to the appendix, and I think that Appendix will become a seperate document from first 25 pages.”

  7. pattsi Says:

    Thanks for point us in the direction beginning with p. 32 showing the scanned hand written comments. The online comments look to be alphabetized so it is hard to discern the relationship between comments and questions being answered.

  8. charlesdschultz Says:

    Name
    Affiliation
    Known to be present on=
    12/17

    Robert Porter 
    Architect

    Mike Krichhoff 
    Champaign County EDC

    Alvin Griggs  
    Champaign Park District

    Anna Simon 
    Champaign PTA Council
    x

    Bruce Knight 
    City of Champaign
    x

    Rob Kowalski 
    City of Champaign, Planning Department
    x

    Jamie Clausen  
    Community Member

    Susan Zola 
    CUSD #4 Assistant Sup. For Achievement and C & I

    Kristine Chalifoux 
    CUSD #4 Board of Education
    x

    Sue Grey 
    CUSD #4 Board of Education

    Greg Johnson 
    CUSD #4 Centennial HS
    x

    Greg Stock 
    CUSD #4 Centennial HS
    x

    Samantha Harvey 
    CUSD #4 Centennial HS

    Joe Williams 
    CUSD #4 Champaign Central High School
    x

    Cathy Mannen 
    CUSD #4 Champaign Federation of Teachers
    x

    Stephanie Stuart 
    CUSD #4 Community Relations CUSD #4
    x

    Marc Changnon 
    CUSD #4 District Coordinator for Career Programs Unit #4
    x

    Ellen Elrick  
    CUSD #4 Dr. Howard Elementary

    Jill Trentz 
    CUSD #4 Dr. Howard Elementary

    Justin Uppinghouse 
    CUSD #4 Edison Middle School
    x

    Arlene Vespa 
    CUSD #4 Service Center
    x

    John Ayers Jr.  
    CUSD #4 Service Center
    x

    Bill Taylor 
    CUSD #4 South Side Elementary Principal
    x

    Judy Wiegand 
    CUSD #4 Superintendent
    x

    Sam Banks 
    Don Moyer Boys & Girls Club

    Jennifer Simmons 
    Dr. Howard Elementary PTA & Carrie Busey PTA
    x

    Karen Ray 
    Edison Middle School

    Victor Martinez 
    Former UI Employee (retired)

    Charles O. Nash Sr. 
    New Hope Church/Minister Alliance Champaign

    Joan Dykstra 
    Savoy Village Bd. Trustee
    x

    Other attendees

    John Curry
    CUSD #4
    x

    Maria Alanis
    CUSD #4
    x

    Elizabeth deGruy
    CUSD #4
    x

    Lynn Stuckey
    Community Member
    x

    Charles Schultz
    Community Member
    x

    Scott Leopold
    DeJong-Richter
    x

    CUSD #4
    15

    Total
    28
    (some not marked above because we didn’t know them)

  9. charlesdschultz Says:

    wow, what a horribad HTML table…..


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: