School board stymied in setting new goals

105

The Maricopa School Board got some bad news last night when Board President Scott Bartle announced the results of a survey designed to gather opinions about the quality of education in MUSD.

“Teachers were the primary target of the survey,” Bartle said. “But it went to some staff, too, which is fine. We received 339 responses which is a whopping 51-percent response rate.”

The results were not as encouraging as the response rate, however.

The survey asked the question, “How likely are you to recommend MUSD to a colleague or friend?” Respondents scored their inclination to recommend the district on a scale of zero to 10, with zero meaning no possibility of a positive recommendation.

“Those with a score of zero to six are classified as detractors, sevens and eights as neutral, and nines and tens as promoters,” Bartle said. “We got 56 likely to refers, 214 detractors and 120 in the neutral range.”

With nearly four times as many detractors as promoters, the board and Superintendent Jeff Kleck all acknowledged that big improvements are needed, especially in the area of communication with the public.

In accordance with its agenda for the evening, the board then attempted to set some short-term goals to address district problems and improve performance. That attempt was ultimately tabled because of a lack of information about current goals and uncertainty about the district’s budget.

Several parallel sets of goals were read and discussed, including four overarching goals that have been in place for sometime:

1. Create a culture of excellence.
2. Provide high quality professional development.
3. Achieve 10 percent by 2010.
4. Develop a clear communication plan.

But the attempt to move past general guidelines to more specific, measurable goals failed because two board members said they had not received the latest information of progress toward existing goals and because both the board and superintendent were uncertain how much money would be available to fund programs, operations and initiatives.

“We are being asked to discuss goals without seeing the budget,” said board member Torri Anderson.

Kleck agreed setting goals without a clearer idea of the budget would be difficult but added that developing a specific budget without knowing the board’s immediate goals was hard, too.

The board eventually instructed Kleck to provide them with additional information about the specifics of current goals and progress toward them, and deferred setting new goals till a later time.