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

Page *

Page *IntroductionHopkintons School Committee and Superintendent were interested in understanding the perspective of the town on:Importance of specific attributes/goals as they relate to Center SchoolDegree to which these attributes drive preferencesReactions 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.

Page *

Page *MethodologyTo project the results to the universe of registered voters in Hopkinton, we designed a program with:Structured surveyQuantitative data collectionPrimarily web-based data collection:Launched on Nov 21st with:Insert in Hopkinton IndependentEmail invitation via Listserv (school email distribution list)Press Release in local media outletsSecond invitations sent on November 28th with:Email invitation via ListservPress Release in local media outletsPostcard invitation mailed to every household in HopkintonSurvey end-date on December 6thPaper surveys and public computer access were available at Senior Center and the Library

Page *

Page *Sample SizeIn total, a whopping 1,279 surveys were completed:1,260 on-line19 in paper formData cleaning steps included efforts to look for:Speeding cases that took fewer than 4 minutes were removedCheating cases that gave straight-line responses (e.g., all 7s across a list of 22 attributes) were removedRepeating 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.

Page *

Page *Conducting a Random SampleA 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 sampleEfforts 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:

Survey demographicsVoter demographicsWhat to do?Weight the results! Each cell is weighted to reflect the natural proportion of voter demographics

AgeMaleFemale18-240.3%0.2%25-341.9%3.7%35-4413.7%27.4%45-5412.5%23.0%55-644.5%6.4%65-742.4%3.1%75+0.3%0.5%

AgeMaleFemale18-245.0%4.9%25-344.0%4.5%35-449.1%10.9%45-5415.0%15.8%55-649.4%9.2%65-743.8%3.9%75+1.8%2.7%

Page *

Page *Sampling ErrorSampling 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 1,208The associated sampling error is + 3%At a 95% level of confidenceAnother way of saying this:Take any statistic for example: 50% Prefer Option XWe are 95% confident that preference for Option X, among all voters, is between 47% and 53% (50% + 3%).

Page *

Page *Key SectionsAttribute Importance:A list of 22 school-related topics were derived from the community working sessions and exit pollThe importance of these topics is measure in this researchDegree of UrgencyReactions to 7 Hypothetical Solutions 7 hypothetical solutions were testedThe relationship between the 22 attributes and the 7 hypothetical solutions was also exploredConclusions

Page *

Page *Attribute ImportanceQuestions focused on the importance of 22 attributes covering: Physical Facility & Location Educational Priorities Timing & TaxesA 7-point scale was employed as follows:Top 2 Box: Percent that gave a 7 or 6; likely to be motivated by an attribute

Absolutely criticalNot at all important7654321

Page *

Page *Attribute Importance: Physical Facility & Location-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

Page *

Page *Attribute Importance: Educational Priorities-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

Page *

Page *Attribute Importance: Timing & Taxes-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

Page *

Page *Attribute Importance: Another Lookn=1,208Step #1: Isolate attributes important to 40%+ of the audience

Facility or LocationEducational PrioritiesTiming & TaxesAddresses heating/coolingRoom sizes promote effective teaching/learningGood long-term investment/solutionSize meets all needs (sped, Art/Music, full day K, PreK, Library)Does not employ a districted approachImpact on taxesEnergy efficiencyMinimizes disruption during workTotal cost to TownPrepares Town for future growthSufficient space to offer Full Day KCost/timing coordinated with other projectsBuilt on Town-owned landMSBA EligibilityNear Town center/other schoolsASAP/low construction costs

Page *

Page *Attribute Importance: Another LookStep #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)Step #3: Name the themes!!Townwide SchoolsPocketbookSound Educational Investment

Factor #1Factor #2Factor #3Size meets all needs (Spec Ed, Art/Music, full day K, PreK, Library)Total cost to Town over timeIs near the center of Town/other schoolsRoom sizes promote effective teaching/learningImpact on taxesNot districtedPrepares Town for future growthCost/timing coordinated with other projectsASAP/low construction costsBuilt on Town-owned landAddresses heating/coolingGood long-term investment/solutionMinimizes disruption during workSufficient space to offer Full Day KEnergy efficiencyMSBA Eligibility

Page *

Page *Degree of UrgencyMost in Town indicated that a solution to Center School was, at a minimum, equal in priority to other Town projects.n=1,208As compared to other Town projects and needs that mightimpact taxes, do you feel that a solution to Center School is:

Page *

Page *Degree of UrgencyThis 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=1,208From your perspective, how urgent is it toact quickly to address Center School?

Page *

Page *Reactions to 7 Hypothetical SolutionsPurpose: Provide the SC with a general understanding of how the town might react to different solutionsHelp guide decision-making

Why hypothetical?Not all solutions fully explored as yet$$ - No costs associated with the alternatives yet

Page *

Page *Reactions to Hypothetical SolutionsThe 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 environmentBuild 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 remainReplace 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

Page *

Page *Reactions to Hypothetical Solutions

7-point level of appeal scale employed:

1) Top 2 Box: Proponents!3 ways of understanding the data!2) Open-Minded2) 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.

Very AppealingNot at all Appealing7654321

Page *

Page *Reactions to Hypothetical SolutionsPerform minimum needed building maintenanceRenovate & expand Center School to improve facility & achieve educational standardsBuild a new PreK-3 school on Fruit St; Elmwood School as a K-3, two K-3 DistrictsProponents(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)

Page *

Page *Reactions to Hypothetical SolutionsNew school in a central location; need to locate & acquire landNew school at the Hopkins/High School campusExpand 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)

Page *

Page *Reactions to Hypothetical Solutions -From Top to Bottom-Perform minimum needed building maintenanceRenovate & expand Center School to improve facility & achieve educational standardsBuild a new PreK-3 school on Fruit St; Elmwood School as a K-3, two K-3 DistrictsNew school on the same property (11 Ash St)New school in a central location; need to locate & acquire landNew school at the Hopkins/High School campusExpand 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)

Page *

Page *Reactions to Hypothetical SolutionsWhat 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 correlationrelationship is not statistically significanta significant negative correlationa very strong, negative correlation (i.e., theme drives preference for solution in a negative direction) +n.s.-- -+ +

Page *

Page *Reactions to Hypothetical SolutionsWhat Motivated Level of Appeal?Expand Elmwood to house two separate school populations (PreK-1, 2-3)Sound Educational InvestmentProponents: 35%Open-Minded: 34%Opposed: 23%PocketbookTownwide 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

Page *

Page *Reactions to Hypothetical SolutionsWhat Motivated Level of Appeal?Renovate and expand Center School to improve facility and achieve educational standardsSound Educational InvestmentSound 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%PocketbookTownwide Schools- -++ +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

Page *

Page *Reactions to Hypothetical SolutionsWhat Motivated Level of Appeal?New school in a central location; need to locate and acquire landSound Educational InvestmentCorrelation 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 solutionProponents: 22%Open-Minded: 27%Opposed: 40%PocketbookTownwide Schools+ +-+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).

Page *

Page *Reactions to Hypothetical SolutionsWhat Motivated Level of Appeal?New school on the same property (11 Ash St)Sound Educational InvestmentCorrelation 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 solutionProponents: 20%Open-Minded: 31%Opposed: 37%PocketbookTownwide Schoolsn.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).

Page *

Page *Reactions to Hypothetical SolutionsWhat Motivated Level of Appeal?New school at the Hopkins/High School campusSound Educational InvestmentPocketbookTownwide Schools+-+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 maintenanceSound Educational InvestmentPocketbookTownwide Schools- -++Build a new PreK-3 school on Fruit Street; Elmwood School as a K-3, two K-3 DistrictsSound Educational InvestmentPocketbookTownwide Schools+ +-- -

Page *

Page *ConclusionsThree themes run through the Center School challenge:Townwide Schools:Not DistrictedLocated in Center of Town/near other schoolsPocketbook top pocketbook issues:Impact on taxesTotal cost to Town over timeSound Educational Investment top Sound Educational investment issues:Good long-term investment/solutionAddresses heating/coolingRoom sizes promote effective teaching/learningSize meets all needs (sped, Art/Music, full day K, PreK, Library)MSBA EligibilityEach 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.

Page *

Page *ConclusionsThe 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.

Page *

Page *ConclusionsThe most appealing solution was:

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

Big win on Sound Educational InvestmentUnclear on Pocketbook issuesWin on Townwide SchoolsFor 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.

Page *

Page *ConclusionsThe 2nd most appealing solution (very close to the 1st) was:

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

Big loss on Sound Educational InvestmentWin on Pocketbook issuesBig win on Townwide SchoolsAgain, 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

Page *

Page *ConclusionsOther solutions had less appeal and more challenges:

22% proponents, 49% willing to consider, 40% opponentsBig win on Sound Educational InvestmentLoss on Pocketbook issuesWin on Townwide Schools

20% proponents, 51% willing to consider, 37% opponentsUnclear on Sound Educational InvestmentLoss on Pocketbook issuesBig win on Townwide SchoolsReplace 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 remainReplace 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)

Page *

Page *End of PresentationPaul FlaxmanVice PresidentBoston Research GroupOne Ash StreetHopkinton, MA 01748

Page *

Page *AppendixAssuming a new elementary school is built, how acceptable is it to repurpose Center School as:n=1,208

Page *