2011 Hopkinton School Committee Elementary School Building Survey - Research Results - December...

2011 Hopkinton School Committee Elementary School Building Survey

- Research Results -

December 2011

Introduction

Hopkinton’s School Committee and Superintendent were interested in understanding the perspective of the town on:- Importance of specific attributes/goals as they relate to Center

School

- Degree to which these attributes drive preferences

- Reactions to 7 hypothetical solutions to Center School

The School Committee and Superintendent began this process by conducting a series of three working sessions with Hopkinton residents.

The School Committee asked Boston Research Group to assist them with the quantitative portion of this process.

The following is a report of the findings from that process.

Methodology

To project the results to the universe of registered voters in Hopkinton, we designed a program with:

- Structured survey- Quantitative data collection

Primarily web-based data collection:- Launched on Nov 21st with:

Insert in Hopkinton Independent Email invitation via Listserv (school email distribution list) Press Release in local media outlets

- Second invitations sent on November 28th with: Email invitation via Listserv Press Release in local media outlets Postcard invitation mailed to every household in Hopkinton

- Survey end-date on December 6th

Paper surveys and public computer access were available at Senior Center and the Library

Sample Size

In total, a whopping 1,279 surveys were completed:- 1,260 on-line- 19 in paper form

Data cleaning steps included efforts to look for:- Speeding – cases that took fewer than 4 minutes were removed- Cheating – cases that gave straight-line responses (e.g., all 7’s

across a list of 22 attributes) were removed- Repeating – cases of more than 6 surveys from the same computer

(IP address) (excluding the Library, Senior Center, local businesses)

34 cases were removed based on speeding, cheating, or repeating.

Respondents under the age of 18 or those not registered to vote were removed for this analysis (37 were set aside).

The final result was 1208 completed surveys for this analysis.

Conducting a Random Sample

A random sample is one in which each and every individual has an equal chance to participate in the survey.- Listserv to invite participants is not a random sample

- Efforts taken to broaden the sample (paper surveys, press releases, insert in Hopkinton Independent, postcard to every household)

But, the sample did not reflect the universe of registered voters:

Age Male Female

18-24 0.3% 0.2%

25-34 1.9% 3.7%

35-44 13.7% 27.4%

45-54 12.5% 23.0%

55-64 4.5% 6.4%

65-74 2.4% 3.1%

75+ 0.3% 0.5%

Survey demographics

Age Male Female

18-24 5.0% 4.9%

25-34 4.0% 4.5%

35-44 9.1% 10.9%

45-54 15.0% 15.8%

55-64 9.4% 9.2%

65-74 3.8% 3.9%

75+ 1.8% 2.7%

Voter demographicsWhat to do?

Weight the results! Each cell is

weighted to reflect the natural

proportion of voter demographics

Sampling Error

Sampling error is the potential error or difference between the results from the sample and the actual results in the universe.

Given:- A universe of 9,874 registered voters (As of Dec 2011)

- A sample size of 1,208

- The associated sampling error is + 3%

- At a 95% level of confidence

Another way of saying this:- Take any statistic – for example: “50% Prefer Option X”

- We are 95% confident that preference for Option X, among all voters, is between 47% and 53% (50% + 3%).

Key Sections

Attribute Importance:- A list of 22 school-related topics were derived from the community

working sessions and exit poll

- The importance of these topics is measure in this research

Degree of Urgency

Reactions to 7 Hypothetical Solutions - 7 hypothetical solutions were tested

- The relationship between the 22 attributes and the 7 hypothetical solutions was also explored

Conclusions

Attribute Importance

Questions focused on the importance of 22 attributes covering:

Physical Facility & Location

Educational Priorities

Timing & Taxes

A 7-point scale was employed as follows:

Absolutely critical

Not at all important

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

“Top 2 Box”: Percent that gave a 7 or 6; likely to be motivated by an attribute

Attribute Importance: Physical Facility & Location-Top 2 Box Scores--Top 2 Box Scores-

Top facility & location issues focus on plant operations (heating, cooling, efficiency) and appropriate sizing for both current educational needs and future growth.

n=1,208

Attribute Importance: Educational Priorities-Top 2 Box Scores--Top 2 Box Scores-

Top educational issues focus on room sizes to support effective teaching/learning, not districted, minimal disruptions, and Full Day K option for all families.

n=1,208

Attribute Importance: Timing & Taxes-Top 2 Box Scores--Top 2 Box Scores-

All of the “Timing & Taxes” issues were of top 2 box importance to 40% or more of the audience; a good long-term investment/solution topped the list.

n=1,208

Attribute Importance: Another Look

n=1,208

Step #1: Isolate attributes important to 40%+ of the audience

Facility or Location Educational Priorities Timing & Taxes

Addresses heating/cooling Room sizes promote effective teaching/learning

Good long-term investment/solution

Size meets all needs (sped, Art/Music, full day K, PreK, Library)

Does not employ a districted approach

Impact on taxes

Energy efficiency Minimizes disruption during work

Total cost to Town

Prepares Town for future growth

Sufficient space to offer Full Day K

Cost/timing coordinated with other projects

Built on Town-owned land MSBA Eligibility

Near Town center/other schools

ASAP/low construction costs

Attribute Importance: Another Look

Step #2: Run Factor Analysis to identify independent themesFactor Analysis is a data reduction method that identifies which attributes “go hand-in-hand” in ratings; attributes that go hand-in-hand are part of a larger theme (these are not ordered by importance)

Factor #1 Factor #2 Factor #3

Size meets all needs (Spec Ed, Art/Music, full day K, PreK, Library)

Total cost to Town over time Is near the center of Town/other schools

Room sizes promote effective teaching/learning

Impact on taxes Not districted

Prepares Town for future growth Cost/timing coordinated with other projects

ASAP/low construction costs Built on Town-owned land

Addresses heating/cooling

Good long-term investment/solution

Minimizes disruption during work

Sufficient space to offer Full Day K

Energy efficiency

MSBA EligibilityStep #3: Name the themes!!

Townwide SchoolsTownwide SchoolsPocketbookPocketbookSound Educational InvestmentSound Educational Investment

Degree of Urgency

Most in Town indicated that a solution to Center School was, at a minimum, equal in priority to other Town projects.

n=1,208

As compared to other Town projects and needs that mightimpact taxes, do you feel that a solution to Center School is:

Degree of Urgency

This question had (too) many ideas incorporated into one question; nonetheless, roughly two-thirds (63%) indicated that addressing Center School is extremely or fairly urgent.

n=1,208

From your perspective, how urgent is it toact quickly to address Center School?

Reactions to 7 Hypothetical Solutions

Purpose:

Provide the SC with a general understanding of how the town might react to different solutions

Help guide decision-making

Why “hypothetical?”

Not all solutions fully explored as yet

$$ - No costs associated with the alternatives yet

Reactions to Hypothetical SolutionsThe 7 Solutions Were:The 7 Solutions Were:

Perform minimum needed building maintenance on Center School (does not address operational issues (HVAC, ADA compliance) or educational objectives (size of classrooms, full day kindergarten, etc.))

Renovate and expand Center School to improve facility and achieve educational standards; would effectively accommodate a larger number of students; would meet all ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) requirements; construction would disrupt educational environment

Build a new PreK-3 school on Fruit Street; renovate Elmwood School as a K-3 school to achieve parity; Hopkins remains a 4-5 school; result would be two K-3 Districts

Replace Center School with a new school on the same property (11 Ash Street); would be disruptive to teaching/learning during construction; some site challenges (e.g., parking, pick-up/drop-off) would remain

Replace Center School with a new school in a central location (exact location to be determined); Town would need to locate and acquire land (buy or swap)

If adequate land is available, replace Center School with a new school at the Hopkins/High School campus; may require purchase of additional land and may displace sports fields. Athletics would need to be accommodated at another site (potentially Fruit Street: would require fields to be built and transportation to/from fields)

If land is sufficient, replace Center School by expanding the Elmwood building to house two separate school populations (PreK-1, 2-3) with two principals. May allow for coordination and sharing of resources (Library, cafeteria, playground, gymnasium) between the two school populations

Reactions to Hypothetical Solutions

7-point “level of appeal” scale employed:

Very Appealing

Not at all Appealing

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

1) “Top 2 Box”: Proponents!

3 ways of understanding the data!

2) Open-Minded

2) “Bottom 2 Box”: Opposed!

Each concept had the following introduction: Please note that most of these hypothetical scenariosare likely to require a capital article and thus may impact taxes; larger projects are likely to have agreater impact on taxes.


Perform minimum needed building maintenance

Renovate & expand Center School to improve facility & achieve educational standards

Build a new PreK-3 school on Fruit St; Elmwood School as a K-3, two K-3 Districts

Proponents(7 or 6)

Open-Minded(5 or 4)

(3) Opposed(2 or 1)

Proponents(7 or 6)

Open-Minded(5 or 4)

(3) Opposed(2 or 1)

Proponents(7 or 6)

Open-Minded(5 or 4)

(3) Opposed(2 or 1)

New school on the same property (11 Ash St)

Proponents(7 or 6)

Open-Minded(5 or 4)

(3) Opposed(2 or 1)


New school in a central location; need to locate & acquire land

New school at the Hopkins/High School campus

Expand Elmwood to house two separate school populations (PreK-1, 2-3)

Proponents(7 or 6)

Open-Minded(5 or 4)

(3) Opposed(2 or 1)

Proponents(7 or 6)

Open-Minded(5 or 4)

(3) Opposed(2 or 1)

Proponents(7 or 6)

Open-Minded(5 or 4)

(3) Opposed(2 or 1)

Reactions to Hypothetical Solutions -From Top to Bottom--From Top to Bottom-

Perform minimum needed building maintenance

Renovate & expand Center School to improve facility & achieve educational standards

Build a new PreK-3 school on Fruit St; Elmwood School as a K-3, two K-3 Districts

New school on the same property (11 Ash St)

New school in a central location; need to locate & acquire land

New school at the Hopkins/High School campus

Expand Elmwood to house two separate school populations (PreK-1, 2-3)

Proponents(7 or 6)

Open-Minded(5 or 4) (3)

Opposed(2 or 1)

Reactions to Hypothetical SolutionsWhat Motivated Level of Appeal?What Motivated Level of Appeal?

Goal of analysis:

Understand relationship between key themes and solution appeal.

Provide understanding of how perceptions impact preference.

Method: examine correlation between the themes & preference. a very strong, positive correlation (i.e., theme drives

preference for solution in a positive direction)

a significant positive correlation

relationship is not statistically significant

a significant negative correlation

a very strong, negative correlation (i.e., theme drives preference for solution in a negative direction)

+

n.s.

-

- -

+ +


Expand Elmwood to house two separate school populations

(PreK-1, 2-3)

Sound Educational Sound Educational InvestmentInvestment

Proponents: 35%

Open-Minded: 34%

Opposed: 23%

PocketbookPocketbook

Townwide SchoolsTownwide Schools

+ +

n.s.

+

Sound Educational Investment is closely linked to appeal of the “Expand Elmwood” solution; Townwide Schools is also positively linked to this solution. Pocketbook issues are not linked (either positively or negatively) indicating that the impact of this solution on pocketbook issues is not directly known or perceived at this time.

Correlation analysis used to understand relationship between themes and solution appeal:+ +/- - very strong relationship (positive or negative) between theme and solution+/- significant relationship (positive or negative) between theme and solutionn.s. no significant relationship between theme and solution


Renovate and expand Center School to

improve facility and achieve educational

standards


Sound Educational Investment has a negative relationship to appeal of the “Renovate Center School” solution, while Pocketbook and Townwide Schools both have positive relationships to this solution.

Proponents: 34%

Open-Minded: 31%

Opposed: 26%



- -

+

+ +



New school in a central location; need to locate and acquire

land



Proponents: 22%

Open-Minded: 27%

Opposed: 40%



+ +

-

+

While Sound Educational Investment and Townwide Schools are positively linked to “New school/central location,” Pocketbook issues have a negative association with this solution (likely due to the need to acquire land).


New school on the same property (11 Ash

St)



Proponents: 20%

Open-Minded: 31%

Opposed: 37%



n.s.

-

+ +

A New School on the Center School property has a very positive association with the Townwide Schools theme but a negative association to Pocketbook issues. It is interesting to note the absence of any relationship with Sound Educational Investment (whereas other new school options have a positive relationship).


New school at the Hopkins/High School

campus




+

-

+

Proponents: 16%

Open-Minded: 24%

Opposed: 45%

Proponents: 17%

Open-Minded: 18%

Opposed: 54%

Proponents: 18%

Open-Minded: 15%

Opposed: 60%

Perform minimum needed building

maintenance




- -

+

+

Build a new PreK-3 school on Fruit Street; Elmwood School as a K-3, two K-3 Districts




+ +

-

- -

Conclusions

Three “themes” run through the Center School challenge:- Townwide Schools:

Not Districted Located in Center of Town/near other schools

- Pocketbook – top “pocketbook” issues: Impact on taxes Total cost to Town over time

- Sound Educational Investment – top “Sound Educational investment” issues:

Good long-term investment/solution Addresses heating/cooling Room sizes promote effective teaching/learning Size meets all needs (sped, Art/Music, full day K, PreK, Library) MSBA Eligibility

Each of these themes has an independent impact when considering plans for Center School.

A successful solution will be one in which all three themes are adequately addressed.

Conclusions

The Town recognizes that some degree of urgency is required. Move forward, with prudence and care. But you do have permission to move forward.

Regarding the hypothetical solutions tested, the Town is divided:- The 7 solutions had between 16% and 35% proponents.

- The 7 solutions had between 23% and 60% opponents.

Two solutions were favored above the others; several had very little appeal.

Conclusions

The most appealing solution was:

- 35% proponents, 69% willing to consider, 23% opponents

- Big win on Sound Educational Investment

- Unclear on Pocketbook issues

- Win on Townwide Schools

For this solution to succeed, Pocketbook issues must be carefully explored and communicated to the community.

If land is sufficient, replace Center School by expanding the Elmwood building to house two separate school populations (PreK-1, 2-3) with two principals. May allow for coordination and sharing of resources (Library, cafeteria, playground, gymnasium) between the two school populations.

Conclusions

The 2nd most appealing solution (very close to the 1st) was:

- 34% proponents, 65% willing to consider, 26% opponents

- Big loss on Sound Educational Investment

- Win on Pocketbook issues

- Big win on Townwide Schools

Again, Pocketbook issues must be explored to confirm (or refute) that this solution is strong on Pocketbook issues.

Today, the community does not feel this solution meets the criteria of Sound Educational Investment; to succeed, this topic must be addressed and carefully communicated.

Renovate and expand Center School to improve facility and achieve educational standards; would effectively accommodate a larger number

of students; would meet all ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) requirements; construction would disrupt educational environment

Conclusions

Other solutions had less appeal and more challenges:

- 22% proponents, 49% willing to consider, 40% opponents- Big win on Sound Educational Investment- Loss on Pocketbook issues- Win on Townwide Schools

- 20% proponents, 51% willing to consider, 37% opponents- Unclear on Sound Educational Investment- Loss on Pocketbook issues- Big win on Townwide Schools

Replace Center School with a new school on the same property (11 Ash Street); would be disruptive to teaching/learning during construction;

some site challenges (e.g., parking, pick-up/drop-off) would remain

Replace Center School with a new school in a central location (exact location to be determined); Town would need to locate and acquire land (buy or swap)

End of Presentation

Paul FlaxmanVice President

Boston Research GroupOne Ash Street

Hopkinton, MA 01748

Appendix

49%45%

40% 37% 36%28%

19%

24%27%

24% 27%20%

27%

27%

21% 22%28% 28%

36% 38%

43%

6% 7% 8% 8% 8% 8% 11%

School AdminOffices

CommunityCenter

Town Hall Rec/ExerciseCenter

Sold forcommercial use

Retail Space MarathonMuseum

Very acceptable Somewhat acceptable Not acceptable Don't know

Assuming a new elementary school is built, how acceptable is it to repurpose Center School as:

n=1,208

2011 Hopkinton School Committee Elementary School Building Survey - Research Results - December...

Documents

Transcript of 2011 Hopkinton School Committee Elementary School Building Survey - Research Results - December...