Vote YES September 25, 2001

4740 surveys were mailed out. 555 surveys were returned. Approximate return rate: 12%.

A copy of the survey appears in the appendix.

The purpose of the community survey was to solicit input from the community in 3 key areas:

1. Perception of need for expansion of facilities (Q1, Q2)

The point of these questions was to assess community understanding of the capacity issues and the need for information in this area.

Approximately half of respondents indicated a belief that facilities are inadequate that this need must be addressed. The perception of adequacy by approximately 1/3 of respondents may have been based on inclusion of LRP/RR as part of the facilities referenced in the question. "Reopen LRP and/or RR" was a prevailing theme throughout the survey responses.

2. Important considerations in shaping a second referendum (Q3, Q5, Q6)

These questions were designed to elicit community values regarding the format of the referendum and its content.

Focus on using existing buildings (LRP and/or RR) was the strongest issue. Affordability was the second most cited consideration. Additions to the elementary schools, improvement of high school science labs, and provision of space for art and music led the list of items that should be included.

3. Fiscal parameters (Q4, Q7)

These questions sought to assess the broad thinking of the community in terms of willingness to invest in expansion of the district facilities. Through correlation of responses, the questions also helped to assess community understanding of monthly costs relative to a total bond cost—another potential issue for education.

On Question #4, the average* respondent favored $15 per month as a tax increase. There was significant deviation from the average as shown in Chart A on page 15, but approximately equal numbers of respondents fell above and below.

Question #7 correlated very well with Question #4, resulting in an average bondable investment of $10 million. Quite a variation in data on this question is also evident (see Chart B, page 15).

* The average used was a median because the mean and mode were both seriously skewed.

NOTE: It is important to look very specifically at the wording of questions when interpreting the data.

Additionally, demographic questions (Q8-Q13) were included to help the committee assess the generalizability of the responses and to identify the interests of specific subgroups. Long-time residents made up the bulk of the respondents. All age groups save the youngest (18-23) were well represented. Responses from parents made up approximately 1/3 of the total.

Results are discussed in these four areas on the following pages.

These questions were included to help the committee assess the generalizability of the responses and to identify the interests of specific subgroups.

1. Long-time residents of Cedar Grove (more than 21 years) accounted for 55% of the returns. The remaining categories each amounted to approximately 11-12%, except for 16-20 year residents (7%). 4% declined to identify their length of residence. (See Figure 1)
2. By age group, respondents were roughly divided between those under 52 and over 52. Only 3 responses came from respondents age 18-30. 4.5% declined to identify their age group. (See Figure 2)
3. 167 (30%) of respondents had children in public school; 66% did not have children in public school. Twenty (3.6%) declined to answer this question. Of this group, 128 had children in K-6; 38 in 7-8; 44 in 9-12. (See Figure 3)
4. 6.7% of respondents had children in private schools; 86.7% did not have children in private schools. Of this group, 21 had children in K-6; 5 in 7-8; 14 in 9-12. (See Figure 3)
5. Some respondents had children both in public and private schools; thus, there is an overlap in the two data sets. Similarly, there are overlaps in grade level data sets.

The point of these questions was to assess community understanding of the capacity issues and the need for information in this area.

1. The strongest response (N=245, 44%) indicated that facilities are inadequate and need to expand.
2. Of 170 (31%) indicating that facilities are adequate, 22 (13%) specifically noted "adequate with RR or LRP reopened."
3. 122 (22%) noted a need for information on this issue.
4. 18 respondents (3%) did not answer this question.

1. Approximately 48% (N=268) believed overcrowding would get worse or become a crisis over the next several years.
2. Approximately 39% (N=218) believed overcrowding would not be a problem or would resolve itself.
3. Approximately 12% (N=69) offered no opinion or did not respond to the question.

A general correlation existed between responses to these two questions. That is, in general, those who thought the facilities were adequate thought overcrowding would not be a problem or resolve itself; those who thought the facilities were inadequate predicted overcrowding would get worse or become a crisis.

These questions were designed to elicit community values regarding the format of the referendum and its content. (note: respondents could select any number of items; thus, totals = more than 555)

1. The strongest selection from the list provided was "use existing schools for expansion; renovation rather than new" (N=359, 46.6%)
2. Affordability (N=180, 32%) and focus on one amount rather than contingencies (N=114, 21%) were distant seconds to the issue of using existing schools.
3. Focus only on space, not upgrades (N=44, 8%) was the least favored factor of those presented.
4. 86 respondents (15.5%) offered comments in the space provided for other changes. Of these, approximately 21 (24% of the list) reinforced the idea of using LRP and/or RR; 10 (12%) noted satisfaction with the first referendum. Other themes: realistic/streamlined costs; use of state aid.

Responses provide the following rank list of priorities:

1. Additions to the elementary schools                                   (N=254, 46%)
2. Improved science labs at the high school                           (N=239, 43%)
3. Dedicated music and art rooms at the elementary schools (N=210, 38%)
4. Improved lunch facilities at the schools                             (N=178, 32%)
5. Air-conditioned auditorium at the high school                   (N=163, 29%)
6. Additions to the high school                                               (N=146, 26%)
7. Community recreation center for use by public as well as schools            .                                                                                          (N=136, 25%)
8. New windows at the schools                                              (N=126, 23%)
9. Improved gym facilities at the schools                               (N=113, 20%)
10. Upgrading of district fields/athletic fields                          (N=99, 2%)
    (% based on 555 respondents)

168 (30%) of all respondents also offered other suggestions for inclusions in facility expansion/ upgrade program. Of these, the most repeated facility issue was inclusion of computer labs/updating of technology. Attention to roof repairs, boilers, parking, air conditioning of classrooms, auditoriums and cafeterias for the elementary schools, improved furniture, fencing and other security measures were also mentioned.

Apart from addressing specific suggestions for facility expansion/upgrade, many respondents requested attention to academics, to administrative/teacher salary costs, to management issues (budget processes), and to use of LRP/RR.

Based on the average for each, the rank order of issues relative to a new plan to expand and renovate the schools was as follows:

Priority 1: The plan is affordable to taxpayers (average value 3.66)

Priority 2: The plan utilizes Cedar Grove’s existing educational facilities (average value 3.50)

Priority 3: The plan minimizes traffic/safety concerns (average value 2.50)

Priority 4: The plan provides for computer labs in each school (average value 2.36)

Priority 5: The plan moves grades 7-8 out of the high school facility (average value 2.20)

Because there has been considerable debate around the issue of grades 7-8 out of the high school, data was compiled for the subset of parents in the Cedar Grove public schools. The average value assigned to moving grades 7-8 was 2.76. K-6 parents valued this issue at 3.06; 7-8 parents at 2.22; and 9-12 parents at 1.61.

These questions sought to assess the broad thinking of the community in terms of willingness to invest in expansion of the district facilities. Through correlation of responses, the questions also helped to assess community understanding of monthly costs relative to a total bond cost—another potential issue for education.

499 respondents to the survey answered this question. 56 (10%) did not. Responses were as follows:

Chart A: Median response= $15

462 respondents answered this question. 93 (18%) did not. Responses were as follows:

Chart B: Median response=$10 million

 

$	# of responses
0	75
50,000	1
990,000	1
1 million	2
2 million	5
3 million	1
5 million	34
7 million	2
7.5 million	2
8 million	4
<10 million	10
10 million	100
13.8 million	2
15 million	64
18 million	23
20 million	51
>20 million	5
25 million	2
30 million	1
?	13
Depends	64

The committee was also interested in seeing the correlation between responses to Questions 4 and 7, to see if the community has a sense of the "cost" of various bond options on a monthly basis. As the following chart indicates, the correlation was strong, slipping only in the correlation of $25/month to $18,000,000.