Report: Discussing Potential Facility Improvements in SACS September 26, 2017
Outline • Background • Findings from the discussions • Findings from the survey • Summary
Background • 144 people participated in five forums • August 21 7:00 PM - Whispering Meadows Elementary School (20 participants) • August 23 7:00 PM - Lafayette Meadows Elementary School (18 participants) • August 24 7:00 PM - Homestead High School (23 participants) • August 27 2:00 PM - Deer Ridge Elementary School (22 participants) • August 28 7:00 PM - Covington Elementary School (61 participants) • There were surveys of the participants before and after each small group discussion
Background • Outline for each forum • Step 1: Survey gathering information about each participant’s self-reported knowledge of how public schools and local governments are funded and attitudes of how to fund public schools • Step 2: Brief presentation about how public schools are financed • Step 3: Small group discussion of 2 scopes of work and 2 ways to fund each scope (Brief introduction of each scope and funding method followed by small group discussion of each – 4 discussions) • Step 4: Small groups reviewed and summarized their discussions • Step 5: Post discussion survey completed by participants • Step 6: Report out
Findings from the discussions • Issues that came up repeatedly during the discussions, but that were not directly part of the presentation prepared for this project • Property values benefit from good schools • The participants would prefer there was no increase in taxes, but they understand that an increase may be necessary • Participants want the administration and Board to be thinking long-term (condition and capacity of the other schools in the district) • These issues clearly are important to the participants and underpin their opinions about funding facility improvements
Findings from the discussions • Tradeoffs that came up frequently during the discussions • Flexibility in how funds can be used • Equal tax burden • Funds raised through a referendum are dedicated to specific uses and that brings accountability • The need for effective communication came up repeatedly during the discussions • Justifying the scope of the work • Explaining the long-term planning of the Board and Administration • Seeking input regarding facility improvements • “Selling” the referendum
Findings from the surveys Pre-Test: How well do you understand how public schools and local governments are funded? Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent Very well 12 8.6 8.6 Well 41 29.3 37.9 Somewhat well 51 36.4 74.3 Not very well 35 25.0 99.3 Not at all 1 .7 100.0 Total 140 100.0
Findings from the surveys Post-Test: I am better informed about how public education is funded. Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly agree 56 45.5 45.5 Agree 57 46.3 91.9 Disagree 8 6.5 98.4 Strongly disagree 2 1.6 100.0 Total 123 100.0
Findings from the surveys Post-Test: I heard perspectives that are different than mine. Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly agree 34 27.9 27.9 Agree 80 65.6 93.4 Disagree 8 6.6 100.0 Strongly disagree 0 0 Total 122 100.0
Findings from the surveys Post-Test: It was helpful to hear perspectives that are different than mine. Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly agree 49 39.8 39.8 Agree 70 56.9 96.7 Disagree 4 3.3 100.0 Strongly disagree 0 0 Total 123 100.0
Findings from the surveys Post-Test: My perspective on this issue has changed. Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly agree 1 .9 .9 Agree 40 35.1 36.0 Disagree 51 44.7 80.7 Strongly disagree 22 19.3 100.0 Total 114 100.0
Findings from the surveys Which one statement is most important when it comes to funding public schools? Pre-Test Post-Test Frequency Percent Frequency Percent My tax burden 22 16.3 13 10.7 My neighbor's tax burden 1 0.7 3 2.5 Paying an equal percentage 21 15.6 22 18.2 Flexibility in how funds can be used 52 38.5 42 34.7 Funds for designated purposes 21 15.6 15 12.4 Binding public input 13 9.6 12 9.9 Nonbinding public input 5 3.7 14 11.6 Total 135 100 121 100
Findings from the surveys Which one statement is least important when it comes to funding public schools? Pre-Test Post-Test Frequency Percent Frequency Percent My tax burden 16 12.1 24 20.3 My neighbor's tax burden 16 12.1 12 10.2 Paying an equal percentage 25 18.9 20 16.9 Flexibility in how funds can be used 13 9.8 19 16.1 Funds for designated purposes 20 15.2 15 12.7 Binding public input 13 9.8 6 5.1 Nonbinding public input 29 22.0 22 18.6 Total 132 100 118 100
Summary • The moderators and the Director of the Mike Downs Center for Indiana Politics reviewed all notes and comments from the small group discussions and the survey data • Scope of work • There was consensus that a new high school was the preferred scope of work • There was strong support for making major renovations to the high school, in large part due to: • Overall cost of a new high school • Perception of the unequal distribution of the tax burden for a new high school
Summary • There was no consensus on the method of funding • Some thought that the use of the referendum was the preference • Others thought that avoiding the referendum was the preference • All agreed that if there was a preferred funding method, it was preferred by a narrow margin • Reasons for lack of consensus regarding funding method • Participant concern over the passing of a referendum • Potential confusion over referendum passed in 2016 • Concern that passing a referendum for facilities will decrease the likelihood that other referenda (especially for operating funds) will not pass in the future • Participant concern over increase in taxes over a long period of time (20-30 years) • Moderator concern that there was peer pressure to support a referendum in a couple of small group discussions
The Mike Downs Center for Indiana Politics is a non-partisan organization that tries to help people understand the role of politics and government in their daily lives. By doing this we hope to encourage participation in political and public processes. Mike Downs Center for Indiana Politics 2101 East Coliseum Blvd., LA Room 221 Fort Wayne, Indiana 46805 260.481.6691 voice 260.481.6895 fax downsa@ipfw.edu
Recommend
More recommend
