2011 Hopkinton School Committee Elementary School Building Survey

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. Page 2

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 21 st with: § Insert in Hopkinton Independent § Email invitation via Listserv (school email distribution list) § Press Release in local media outlets - Second invitations sent on November 28 th with: § Email invitation via Listserv § Press Release in local media outlets § Postcard invitation mailed to every household in Hopkinton - Survey end-date on December 6 th § Paper surveys and public computer access were available at Senior Center and the Library Page 3

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. Page 4

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: Survey demographics Voter demographics Age Male Female 18 -24 0. 3% 0. 2% 18 -24 5. 0% 4. 9% 25 -34 1. 9% 3. 7% 25 -34 4. 0% 4. 5% 35 -44 13. 7% 27. 4% 35 -44 9. 1% 10. 9% 45 -54 12. 5% 23. 0% 45 -54 15. 0% 15. 8% 55 -64 4. 5% 6. 4% 55 -64 9. 4% 9. 2% 65 -74 2. 4% 3. 1% 65 -74 3. 8% 3. 9% 75+ 0. 3% 0. 5% 75+ 1. 8% 2. 7% Page 5 What 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%). Page 6

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 Page 7

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 7 Not at all important 6 5 4 3 2 1 “Top 2 Box”: Percent that gave a 7 or 6; likely to be motivated by an attribute Page 8

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 9

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 10

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 11

Attribute Importance: Another Look 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, Pre. K, 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 n=1, 208 Page 12

Attribute Importance: Another Look Step #2: Run Factor Analysis to identify independent themes Factor 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, Pre. K, 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 Eligibility Sound Educational Investment Page 13 Step #3: Name themes!! Pocketbook Townwide Schools

Degree of Urgency Most in Town indicated that a solution to Center School was, at a minimum, equal in priority to other Town projects. As compared to other Town projects and needs that might impact taxes, do you feel that a solution to Center School is: n=1, 208 Page 14

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. From your perspective, how urgent is it to act quickly to address Center School? n=1, 208 Page 15

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 Page 16

Reactions to Hypothetical Solutions 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 Pre. K-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 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 (Pre. K-1, 2 -3) with two principals. May allow for coordination and sharing of resources (Library, cafeteria, playground, gymnasium) between the two school populations Page 17

Reactions to Hypothetical Solutions Each concept had the following introduction: Please note that most of these hypothetical scenarios are likely to require a capital article and thus may impact taxes; larger projects are likely to have a greater impact on taxes. § 7 -point “level of appeal” scale employed: Very Appealing 7 Not at all Appealing 6 5 4 3 2 1 2) “Bottom 2 Box”: Opposed! 2) Open-Minded 1) “Top 2 Box”: Proponents! 3 ways of understanding the data! Page 18

Reactions to Hypothetical Solutions Perform minimum needed building maintenance Proponents Open-Minded (3) (7 or 6) (5 or 4) Opposed (2 or 1) Renovate & expand Center School to improve facility & achieve educational standards Proponents (7 or 6) Build a new Pre. K-3 school on Fruit St; Elmwood School as a K-3, two K-3 Districts Open-Minded (5 or 4) Proponents Open-Minded (3) (7 or 6) (5 or 4) Opposed (2 or 1) (3) Opposed (2 or 1) New school on the same property (11 Ash St) Proponents (7 or 6) Page 19 Open-Minded (5 or 4) (3) Opposed (2 or 1)

Reactions to Hypothetical Solutions New school in a central location; need to locate & acquire land Proponents (7 or 6) Open-Minded (5 or 4) (3) Opposed (2 or 1) New school at the Hopkins/High School campus Proponents (7 or 6) Open-Minded (5 or 4) (3) Opposed (2 or 1) Expand Elmwood to house two separate school populations (Pre. K-1, 2 -3) Proponents (7 or 6) Page 20 Open-Minded (5 or 4) (3) Opposed (2 or 1)

Reactions to Hypothetical Solutions -From Top to Bottom. Proponents (7 or 6) Expand Elmwood to house two separate school populations (Pre. K-1, 2 -3) Renovate & expand Center School to improve facility & achieve educational standards New school in a central location; need to locate & acquire land New school on the same property (11 Ash St) New school at the Hopkins/High School campus Perform minimum needed building maintenance Build a new Pre. K-3 school on Fruit St; Elmwood School as a K-3, two K-3 Districts Page 21 Open-Minded (5 or 4) (3) Opposed (2 or 1)

Reactions to Hypothetical Solutions 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 themes & preference. ++ + n. s. -- a very strong, positive correlation (i. e. , theme drives preference for solution in a positive direction) a significant positive correlationship is not statistically significant a significant negative correlation a very strong, negative correlation (i. e. , theme drives preference for solution in a negative direction) Page 22

Reactions to Hypothetical Solutions What Motivated Level of Appeal? 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. Sound Educational Investment Proponents: 35% Open-Minded: 34% Opposed: 23% ++ Pocketbook n. s. Townwide Schools + Expand Elmwood to house two separate school populations (Pre. K-1, 2 -3) 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 solution n. s. no significant relationship between theme and solution Page 23

Reactions to Hypothetical Solutions What Motivated Level of Appeal? 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. Sound Educational Investment -- Pocketbook + Townwide Schools ++ Opposed: 26% Renovate and expand Center School to improve facility and achieve educational standards 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 solution n. s. no significant relationship between theme and solution Page 24 Proponents: 34% Open-Minded: 31%

Reactions to Hypothetical Solutions What Motivated Level of Appeal? 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). Sound Educational Investment Proponents: 22% Open-Minded: 27% Opposed: 40% ++ Pocketbook - Townwide Schools + New school in a central location; need to locate and acquire land 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 solution n. s. no significant relationship between theme and solution Page 25

Reactions to Hypothetical Solutions What Motivated Level of Appeal? 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). Sound Educational Investment Proponents: 20% Open-Minded: 31% Opposed: 37% n. s. Pocketbook - Townwide Schools ++ New school on the same property (11 Ash St) 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 solution n. s. no significant relationship between theme and solution Page 26

Reactions to Hypothetical Solutions What Motivated Level of Appeal? Sound Educational Investment + Pocketbook - Townwide Schools + Sound Educational Investment -- Pocketbook + Townwide Schools + Sound Educational Investment ++ Pocketbook - Townwide Schools -Page 27 New school at the Hopkins/High School campus Perform minimum needed building maintenance Build a new Pre. K-3 school on Fruit Street; Elmwood School as a K-3, two K-3 Districts Proponents: 16% Open-Minded: 24% Opposed: 45% Proponents: 17% Open-Minded: 18% Opposed: 54% Proponents: 18% Open-Minded: 15% Opposed: 60%

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, Pre. K, 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. Page 28

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. Page 29

Conclusions § The most appealing solution was: If land is sufficient, replace Center School by expanding the Elmwood building to house two separate school populations (Pre. K-1, 2 -3) with two principals. May allow for coordination and sharing of resources (Library, cafeteria, playground, gymnasium) between the two school populations. - 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. Page 30

Conclusions § The 2 nd most appealing solution (very close to the 1 st) was: 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 - 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. Page 31

Conclusions § Other solutions had less appeal and more challenges: 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) - 22% proponents, 49% willing to consider, 40% opponents Big win on Sound Educational Investment Loss on Pocketbook issues 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 - 20% proponents, 51% willing to consider, 37% opponents Unclear on Sound Educational Investment Loss on Pocketbook issues Big win on Townwide Schools Page 32