Results of the Jefferson County Employee Survey for Jefferson County Public Schools

Transcription

1 1 Results of the Jefferson County Employee Survey for Jefferson County Public s Submitted By:

2 2 Table of Contents Table of Contents... 2 Executive Summary... 3 Results of the Jefferson County Employee Survey... 6 Methods... 7 Survey Instrument... 7 Survey Administration Data Analyses Construct Scores Departmental Ratings Qualitative Analyses Interpretation Guidelines Survey Results Construct Results Departmental Ratings Open-Ended Survey Comments Summary of Results Recommendations Appendix A Appendix B... 60

3 Executive Summary 3

4 4 The Jefferson County Public s (Jeffco) Employee Survey is designed to measure overall staff satisfaction in eight areas (referred to also as constructs): Supervision (the quality of the employeesupervisor relationship), The District (treatment by the district), The Strategic Plan (the impact of the district s goals and objectives on employee attitudes), Resources (the quality of tools, training and resources), Effectiveness (the performance evaluation process and job-related accountability), Rewards (compensation and benefits), Diversity (equity in the workplace), and Jeffco Representing District Values/Initiatives (the district s demonstration of its values and initiatives). Jeffco has administered this survey in 2000, 2002, 2006, 2008, and During the school year, 8,097 employees responded to the survey (77.6% of the total employee population). Resulting data were analyzed to examine staff satisfaction across these eight constructs to identify district strengths, as well as to identify areas for needed improvements. Data were analyzed both alone for the school year, as well as longitudinally from 2000 to A Key-Driver Analysis was conducted to identify those areas that are the most key to overall job satisfaction and that also have the most room for improvement. Recommendations are made in those areas in which focused improvements have the greatest potential for impact, as well as in areas where patterns of results across various dimensions suggested systemic dissatisfaction among particular employee groups. Key Findings Overall, staff in Jeffco are mostly satisfied, with means across the eight constructs ranging from 3.33 to 4.06 on a five point scale. Very few items were rated in the negative range across any of the eight areas of measurement. Of the eight constructs measured, employees satisfaction scores were highest in the Effectiveness construct, followed by Diversity and then Supervision. Satisfaction scores were lowest in Rewards, followed by The District and The Strategic Plan. Staff report highest levels of satisfaction in the Effectiveness construct, and have done so every year since They express high degrees of positive attitudes towards personal responsibility, accountability, and respect for their jobs. Approximately one-quarter of positive themed openended comments were related to staff expressing pride in what they do. leaders and central office staff are commonly the most satisfied staff within each area of measurement. Means for all subgroups of staff were in the somewhat positive or positive range for the Supervision, Effectiveness, Diversity, and Values constructs, indicating that these are areas of strength for Jeffco Public s. New staff report more satisfaction than more experienced staff, across all constructs, which points to an important pattern: satisfaction declines as staff stay in the district, and tends to be lowest at the six to ten year range. Staff are least satisfied in the area of Rewards, and this is most apparent among preschool, school-age enrichment staff the only staff category to score in the negative range on any

5 5 construct. Dissatisfaction with compensation and benefits was also the second most common complaint among open-ended comments falling under the district infrastructure category. However, satisfaction on the Rewards construct has been improving consistently over the past 10 years. Employee satisfaction in the area of Resources is one of the most important areas for focused improvements, as it is one of the lowest scoring on satisfaction while simultaneously being strongly correlated to staff s perceptions of Jeffco being a good place to work. Items scoring low in Resources include concerns about workload and job training opportunities. Although a small percentage of respondents provided open-ended comments for the survey, these comments were consistent, expressing complaints about unmanageable workloads (third most common complaint in the District Culture category) and dissatisfaction with the quality of available training (third most common complaint in the District Infrastructure category). Employee satisfaction in the area of The District is another area for focused improvements, with the average in this area being more neutral and being strongly correlated to staff s perceptions of Jeffco being a good place to work. Items scoring in the neutral range in The District include trust in district leadership, budgeting and resource allocation, and lack of input in district decision-making. The item about the Board of Education leading the district effectively was the lowest mean reported on the entire survey at Licensed staff often report the lowest satisfaction scores when examining means by role, with scores in the neutral range on The District, The Strategic Plan, Resources, and Rewards. This finding points to a systemic issue, as this category represents all teachers, counselors, instructional coaches, etc. High school staff are the least satisfied group among all school-based employees, and their scores were in the neutral range on The District, The Strategic Plan, Resources, and Rewards constructs. Again, this points to a systemic issue, as this pattern was systematic and reliable across multiple areas.

6 Results of the Jefferson County Employee Survey 6

7 7 Beginning with the school year, Jefferson County Public s (Jeffco) has been conducting employee opinion surveys to assess the satisfaction of staff and to identify issues to target for improvement. Data have been collected, and results analyzed, during the fall semesters of 2000, 2002, 2006, 2008 and This report details results of the survey effort from 2010, and also examines results longitudinally over the course of the 10 year period to identify patterns of change over time. Methods Survey Instrument The survey instrument itself was designed by Jeffco staff, and has undergone minor changes to question wording and content over the years it has been used. Overall, the survey instrument is designed in two main parts: 1) Measurement of employee satisfaction and 2) Quality ratings of each of the district s departments. Measurement of Employee Satisfaction. A total of 77 items were used to measure different aspects of employee s overall job experience, including issues such as compensation and benefits, resources available, relationships with supervisors, the performance evaluation process, distribution of workload, issues of equity in the workplace, and others. Each item was rated on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 ( Strongly Disagree ) to 5 ( Strongly Agree ). These 77 items were designed to measure eight areas, or constructs, relating to employee satisfaction including: The quality of the employee-supervisor relationship (Supervision) Treatment by the district (District) The impact of district s goals and objectives on employee attitudes (Strategic Plan) The quality of tools, training, and resources (Resources) The performance evaluation process and job-related accountability (Effectiveness) Compensation and benefits (Rewards) Equity in the workplace (Diversity) The district s demonstration of its values and initiatives (Jeffco Representing District Values/Initiatives) Table 1 presents the name of each construct (labels were kept consistent with labels used in previous years), a description of what that construct is measuring, and the items comprising that construct.

8 8 Table 1. Construct Descriptions Construct Label Description of what is being measured Number of Survey Items Supervision Quality of the employee-supervisor relationship (Item 1) When I come to work I am made to feel welcome. 2. (Item 24) My supervisor provides both constructive criticism and positive feedback. 3. (Item 25) My supervisor encourages cooperation between my work team and other groups. 4. (Item 26) My supervisor serves as a role model in accomplishing objectives. 5. (Item 27) My supervisor confronts unethical behavior appropriately. 6. (Item 28) My supervisor treats me fairly. 7. (Item 29) My supervisor holds me accountable for high performance. 8. (Item 30) I trust my supervisor. 9. (Item 31) I am satisfied with how my supervisor communicates work team goals and objectives. 10. (Item 32) I am satisfied with how my supervisor involves me in making decisions. 11. (Item 33) I am satisfied with how well my supervisor keeps me informed about district objectives and strategies. 12. (Item 34) I am satisfied with my supervisor s understanding of what I actually do. 13. (Item 35) The recognition I receive from my supervisor helps me to feel valued. 14. (Item 36) My supervisor is an effective communicator. 15. (Item 37) My supervisor is held accountable through adequate supervision and evaluation. District Employee perceptions of how they are treated by the District (Item 38) Building facilities in the district support student learning. 2. (Item 39) District information I receive is accurate. 3. (Item 40) District information I receive is timely. 4. (Item 41) This is a good place to work. 5. (Item 42) Decision making in this district is based on hard data. 6. (Item 43) This district communicates effectively with the community. 7. (Item 44) s and departments in this district coordinate their efforts. 8. (Item 45) This district is efficient in its use of resources. 9. (Item 46) This district provides equal opportunities for employment advancement.

9 9 Construct Label Description of what is being measured 10. (Item 51) I am satisfied with how well this district considers employee opinions in decision-making. 11. (Item 52) This district provides effective orientation for new employees. 12. (Item 53) This district has the technology that it needs to meet the future. 13. (Item 54) This district values student learning. 14. (Item 55) This district actively seeks parent and community involvement. 15. (Item 56) I trust district leadership. 16. (Item 57) Senior management (Cabinet) is leading the district effectively. 17. (Item 58) The Superintendent is leading the district effectively. 18. (Item 59) The Board of Education is leading the district effectively. 19. (Item 64) The district s Values Awards Program contributes to employees feeling valued. 20. (Item 69) The district is committed to focusing on results. 21. (Item 70) The district recruits and employs highly skilled and qualified staff. 22. (Item 71) The district budget is aligned to district goals and objectives. 23. (Item 72) The district provides necessary technology training. 24. (Item 73) The district adequately involves employee representatives in the selection of their supervisors. Number of Survey Items Strategic Plan The impact that District goals and objectives have had on employee attitudes 1. (Item 65) I understand what is expected of me to achieve district goals and objectives (Item 66) Implementation of district goals and objectives is increasing student achievement. 3. (Item 67) Implementation of district goals and objectives is moving the district toward closing achievement gaps. 4. (Item 68) Implementation of district goals and objectives is helping the district to be a high performing organization (efficient, welcoming, customer-oriented and accountable). Resources Quality of tools, training and other resources 5 1. (Item 4) I have adequate resources/tools to do my job. 2. (Item 6) I am satisfied with the quality of resources/tools to perform my job. 3. (Item 9) I am satisfied with the opportunities to participate in quality training/professional development programs. 4. (Item 10) The quality of available job training/professional development is high. 5. (Item 15) The workload expected of me is manageable.

10 10 Construct Label Effectiveness 1. (Item 3) I feel safe in my workplace. Description of what is being measured Performance evaluation process, accountability, impact on student achievement and opportunity to use skills and abilities Number of Survey Items (Item 5) I see my job as important. 3. (Item 7) I am satisfied with the opportunity I have to impact student achievement. 4. (Item 8) I believe that I am personally accountable to those I serve. 5. (Item 11) I am evaluated in a timely manner. 6. (Item 12) I understand how my work will be evaluated. 7. (Item 13) The evaluation process is fair. 8. (Item 14) In my experience, the evaluation process has been used appropriately. 9. (Item 16) I am satisfied with the distribution of workload within my work team. 10. (Item 17) There is effective communication within my work team. 11. (Item 18) Individuals in my work team do their jobs well. Rewards Compensation and benefits 5 1. (Item 19) I am satisfied with my benefits and coverage I receive. 2. (Item 20) I am paid fairly when compared to my amount of responsibility. 3. (Item 21) I am paid fairly when compared to others doing the same job inside of Jeffco Public s. 4. (Item 22) I am paid fairly when compared to others doing the same job outside of Jeffco Public s. 5. (Item 23) I am informed about how my salary adjustments are determined. Diversity Issues of race, gender, and sexual orientation equity within the district and workplace respect for individual cultural beliefs and values 5 1. (Item 2) My workplace respects individual cultural beliefs, values, celebrations, holidays, etc. 2. (Item 47) Opportunities are equitable regardless of ethnicity. 3. (Item 48) Opportunities are equitable regardless of gender. 4. (Item 49) Opportunities are equitable regardless of sexual orientation. 5. (Item 50) Opportunities are equitable regardless of disability. Jeffco Representing District Values/Initiatives Jeffco s demonstration of the District s values and initiatives 8

11 11 Construct Label Description of what is being measured 1. (Item 60) As an organization, Jeffco s demonstrates the district value: integrity. Number of Survey Items 2. (Item 61) As an organization, Jeffco s demonstrates the district value: valuing people. 3. (Item 62) As an organization, Jeffco s demonstrates the district value: teamwork. 4. (Item 63) As an organization, Jeffco s demonstrates the district value: exemplary performance. 5. (Item 74) My workplace supports the district initiative of creating a welcoming environment. 6. (Item 75) My workplace supports the district initiative of providing quality customer service. 7. (Item 76) As an organization, Jeffco s is achieving its mission To provide a quality education that prepares all children for a successful future. 8. (Item 77) My workplace supports the district initiative on cultural diversity. Quality Ratings of District Departments. In each year that the survey has been administered, Jeffco employees have assigned ratings to each of the district s departments. On a scale of 1 ( Not at all helpful ) to 5 ( Very helpful ), employees rate each department on the level of help you receive. Employees were instructed to provide a rating of not applicable to any department with which they have not worked. Open-ended Question. In addition to these closed-ended items, employees were also given an opportunity to articulate their opinions and experiences in an open-ended format by writing comments on a separate sheet of paper if they had anything else they wanted Jeffco to know. Survey Administration To collect data from all Jeffco employees, survey scantrons were distributed to principals/department managers at a central meeting on December 1, Principals/department managers were instructed to distribute scantrons to staff at their schools or in their departments, and were encouraged to give employees time during work hours to complete the survey. All surveys included an envelope addressed to Instructional Data Services with which to return the completed survey. All completed surveys were due by December 15, 2010, and could be returned via inter-office mail, US mail, or by hand-delivering to the Instructional Data Services department. Once collected, completed scantrons were sent to an external company for compilation (Scantron). Jeffco then provided Gibson Consulting Group, Inc. with the dataset, as well as compiled datasets for each of the prior year s survey administrations, including 2000, 2002, 2006, and Data Analyses Construct Scores Creation of Construct Scores. Over the past 10 years, survey items used to measure the eight areas of employee satisfaction have undergone minor changes some wording has changed, some items have

12 12 been added, and some items have been deleted. However, when aggregating individual survey items into construct means, the individual items comprising those constructs need not be exactly the same each year, as long as they are tapping into the same overarching concept. Construct scores, as a mean of several items tapping the same area of measurement, are more robust measures of that area than are individual items. For example, the average of the five items measuring Diversity is a better true measure of Diversity than any one of the five items themselves1. Thus, all analyses conducted on the data were performed on construct scores, not on individual survey items. This reliance on construct scores also enables longitudinal comparison over the five survey administration periods (2000, 2002, 2006, 2008, 2010) despite the fact that some items within the eight constructs have undergone minor changes. To ensure that constructs were appropriately aggregated from individual survey items, Chronbach s Alpha reliability statistics were calculated for each construct in each year. Chronbach s Alpha coefficients indicate the extent to which a set of items are intercorrelated, that is, capturing unique aspects of a similar concept. The higher the alpha coefficient (on a scale of 0.0 to 1.0), the more internally consistent the construct; the lower the alpha coefficient, the less internal consistency exists, and the greater the likelihood that the set of items is capturing two or more different areas of measurement. A Chronbach s Alpha coefficient of.70 or higher is widely considered acceptable. Chronbach s Alpha s on each of the eight constructs were above.70 for every construct in every year, with some as high as.97 (see Table 2). Thus, each construct of measurement consisted of survey items that were appropriately intercorrelated and when combined, measured a unique aspect of employee satisfaction. Table 2. Chronbach s Alpha Coefficients on Each of the Eight Constructs. Construct Supervision The District The Strategic Plan Resources Effectiveness Rewards Diversity Jeffco Representing District Values/Initiatives This is true only if the items comprising the measure have a high degree of internal consistency.

13 13 Construct means were then derived by averaging scores from the items comprising each of the eight constructs for each person in the sample, separately within each year s dataset. These construct means were then used as the unit of analysis. When a participant left all questions for a construct blank, their responses were not included in the construct score. Mean scores for each construct in 2000, 2002, 2006 and 2008 were matched to each year s respective report to ensure mean scores were replicated Analyses. Mean scores were then used to examine employee satisfaction for each of the eight constructs. In addition to comparing means across the eight constructs, within each construct, means were examined to determine whether important differences existed based on employee characteristics, such as length of service, school level, and role in the district. For all of these comparisons, Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used with Bonferonni post-hoc tests2. Because of the large sample size and relative ease of finding statistical significance in large populations, the most conservative tests were used to determine statistical significance, and effect size estimates (statistics estimating the relative size of an observed effect) are provided to help interpret the size of the differences reported. Key Driver Analysis. A key driver analysis was also conducted examining the relationship between a construct s performance (i.e., its overall satisfaction score) and the importance that construct has on an employee s overall attitudes towards working in the district, defined as the correlation between the construct score and responses to the item This is a good place to work. The key driver analysis identifies constructs that are high on performance and high on importance, high on performance but low on importance, low on performance but high on importance, and low on performance and low on importance. Patterns of Change Over Time. With the same constructs being measured in each of the five survey administration periods, it is possible to examine patterns of change over time in the mean scores provided on each construct. When examining changes from one year to the next in two-year increments, it is impossible to observe whether changes in means are bouncing around some average point or truly making meaningful change. For example if scores go up from 2000 to 2002 then down from 2002 to 2006, then up from 2006 to 2008 etc., it may look as though each year there is significant change, but if the data are examined over the entire course of the 10 year period, it may be that the average scores are just moving above and below some average but not really changing at all. Looking across all five administration periods, using appropriate statistical tests, may identify a significant pattern of change, such as a gradually and significantly increasing mean score, or a dramatic shift where mean scores significantly reverse from one time period to the next. To examine change over time, a dataset was created inclusive of each of the eight construct scores from each of the five previous survey administrations. Because unique identification information was not captured on the survey, scores could not be matched within-person over time, which would allow for an even more powerful analysis of true longitudinal change. Instead, a variable representing the time continuum was created, associating each construct score with the year of its administration. Regression 2 The Bonferonni correction is used when many significance tests are being conducted, to control the rate of Type II errors. This is the most conservative test of differences between groups.

14 14 analyses were then conducted on each of the eight constructs using time as a predictor. Linear, quadratic, and cubic terms were included in the model to allow for the fact that the relationship between time and construct score may not be simply linear3. Departmental Ratings Analyses. Ratings for each department were averaged for those employees selecting a score between 1 and 5 (those employees indicating not applicable were dropped from the average rating for that department). Departments were then ranked by average mean score. Departmental Ratings Over Time. A new dataset was created merging mean department ratings from each year of the five survey administration periods. For this dataset, only departments that existed in 2010 were included, and each department was tracked backwards in time aligning departmental name changes across the years. Thus, any department that existed in earlier administrations, but no longer exists, are not included in these results. They are included, however, if their department name was changed, and in these instances, they are included under the current name. Once aligned, average mean scores were examined over time for each department. Qualitative Analyses Open-ended comments were submitted by 314 individuals completing the survey. These responses were imported into nvivo, a software program for performing qualitative analyses on narrative data. Because most individuals submitting comments wrote about multiple issues in their responses, each response was first parsed into unique comments, resulting in more comments than number of people responding, which reflects the true number of comments provided. Next, each parsed comment was determined as positive or negative, and common themes were identified within the positive set and within the negative set. Mutually exclusive categories were created within each set, and finally, each comment was coded to one of these categories. This content coding enabled identification of the most frequently provided negative and positive comments. Because open-ended comments were linked to responding employee s demographic characteristics, the qualitative analyses also examined whether particular patterns of responses were more or less common among specific types of employees. Interpretation Guidelines Given the five-point Likert-type response scale used for the measurement of the eight satisfaction constructs, the following interpretation guidelines have been established, and are maintained in this report: 3 A significant quadratic trend would indicate a significant pattern where scores are flat for some time period, and then increase during another time period. A significant cubic trend would indicate a significant reversal in a construct over time, with scores decreasing at some point, and increasing at another point.

15 15 An average rating of 4.0 or higher represents a positive result, and is indicative of an area of strength. An average rating of between 3.5 and 4.0 represents a somewhat positive result and is indicative of an area that while not a problem, could be improved. An average rating of between 3.0 and 3.5 represents a neutral result, and it is indicative of an area that could use improvement to avoid becoming a problem in the future. An average rating lower than 3.0 represents a negative result, and is indicative of a problem or area of weakness Survey Results Construct Results Overall Results To provide an overall picture of satisfaction in each construct area across the district, a grand mean was calculated for each construct (in other words, the overall average for the Supervision construct reflects the mean of every person s Supervision mean). On average, staff in Jeffco s were mostly satisfied, with grand means on the eight constructs ranging from 3.33 to Table 3 displays the grand means for each of the eight constructs across all Jeffco s employees, along with the appropriate rating according to the interpretation guidelines. Means for each individual item comprising the construct scores can be found in Appendix B. Table 3. Average ratings for each of the eight constructs Construct Grand Mean Standard Deviation Rating Supervision Somewhat Positive The District Neutral The Strategic Plan Somewhat Positive Resources Neutral Effectiveness Positive Rewards Neutral Diversity Somewhat Positive Jeffco Representing District Values/Initiatives Somewhat Positive Positive Ratings. On average, Jeffco staff provided the highest ratings on the construct labeled Effectiveness. The items on this scale receiving the highest scores included I see my job as important and I believe that I am personally accountable to those I serve. Five of the 11 items making up this

16 16 scale were rated in the positive range (i.e., above 4.0). The lowest rated items on this scale included, I am satisfied with the distribution of workload within my work team, There is effective communication within my work team and In my experience, the evaluation process has been used appropriately. While these were the lowest rated in the construct, they were still rated quite highly with mean scores ranging from in the somewhat positive range. Somewhat Positive Ratings. While no other construct achieved a grand mean score in this positive range, four constructs scored average ratings in the somewhat positive range including Supervision, The Strategic Plan, Diversity, and Jeffco Representing District Values/Initiatives. On the Supervision construct, staff assigned the highest ratings to My supervisor holds me accountable for high performance, When I come to work, I am made to feel welcome, My supervisor treats me fairly, and My supervisor encourages cooperation between my work team and other groups. All four of these items scored in the positive range. The lowest rated items in this construct included I am satisfied with how well my supervisor involves me in making decisions, My supervisor is an effective communicator, and My supervisor is held accountable through adequate supervision and evaluation, though with means ranging from , these items still scored in the somewhat positive range. The Strategic Plan construct was comprised of four items, and the range of the means on these four items was substantial, with the highest scoring item ( I understand what is expected of me to achieve district goals and objectives ) scoring a 3.84 in the somewhat positive range and the lowest scoring item ( Implementation of district goals and objectives is moving the district toward closing achievement gaps ) scoring a 3.38, in the neutral range. Within the Diversity construct, one of the five items scored in the positive range ( My workplace respects individual cultural beliefs, values, celebrations ), while all other items scoring equitable opportunities were clustered close together between 3.8 and 3.89, all in the somewhat positive range. The fourth construct to score in the somewhat positive range was Jeffco Representing District Values and Initiatives. Means for the eight items in this construct were all in the somewhat positive range. Clustered at the top were the three items measuring the extent to which Jeffco supports the district initiatives of creating a welcoming environment, providing quality customer service, and cultural diversity, with means ranging from 3.88 to 3.9. Ratings assigned to Jeffco demonstrating exemplary performance and valuing people were clustered at the bottom (3.6 and 3.65, respectively) along with As an organization, Jeffco s is achieving its mission to provide a quality education that prepares all children for a successful future with a mean of Importantly, all eight items scored in the somewhat positive range. Neutral Rating. The most improvement can be made in the three areas given average ratings of neutral. On The District construct, a total of 14 items scored below 3.5, in the neutral range. The lowest scoring items, revealing opportunities for improvements, included The Board of Education is leading the district effectively, The district is efficient in its resources, and I am satisfied with how well this district considers employee opinions in decision-making. Other items scoring below 3.2 included Senior management (cabinet) is leading the district effectively, the district budget is aligned to district goals

17 17 and objectives, I trust district leadership, and The district adequately involves employee representatives in the selection of their supervisors. Employees assigned substantially higher ratings in this construct to items including This is a good place to work, The district values student learning (both above 4.0), and The district is committed to focusing on results. Results on the Resources construct reveal an important area for improvement. The workload expected of me is manageable scored a full half point lower than any other item with a mean of 3.18, a score that is disproportionate to other issues regarding Resources. The next lowest item, The quality of available job training/professional development is high scored a The other three items on the scale were in the somewhat positive range with means above 3.5. Finally, the Rewards construct was the lowest scoring construct in the district, with a grand mean of 3.33 in the neutral range. Two items stand out in this construct as scoring lower than the others, and thus recommend themselves as important areas for improvement. These two items are I am paid fairly when compared to my amount of responsibility and I am paid fairly when compared to others doing the same job outside of Jeffco Public s. With means of 2.99 and 3.09 respectively, these two items were rated a full half-point lower than the other items in the Rewards construct, which scored closer to the somewhat positive range of and included I am paid fairly when compared to others doing the same job inside of Jeffco Public s, I am satisfied with my benefits and coverage I receive and I am informed about how my salary adjustments are determined. Differences by Groups The following sections more closely examine these construct scores by looking for significant differences between various groups of employees in search of those subgroups for which satisfaction is reliably lower than for others. Determining which groups were significantly less satisfied than other groups with various aspects of their employment can help Jeffco s make more targeted efforts at improvements. To facilitate a focus on the comparisons of most interest, broader categories were created in some of the demographic variables. For the Role grouping variable, principals and assistant principals were grouped into a Leaders category, and a Central Administrator category was created from those who selected either Central Administrator or Professional/Technical Manager or Supervisor, Central Professional/Technical Employee (non-manager, but on the administrative salary schedule), or Central Educational Licensed Administrator. Finally, Custodian and Landscape/Maintenance/Environmental & Energy were combined into Custodian/Landscape and Maintenance. For the Current Assignment grouping variable, school-based staff were compared to non-school-based staff which groups together respondents who selected any of the other assignment categories. In the Ethnicity demographic variable, due to very small numbers of staff in any of the non-white categories, White, Not Hispanic employees are compared to a category of All Other Ethnicities, which includes Hispanic, Black Not Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander, and American Indian/Alaskan Native/Native Hawaiian, as well as Multiple Ethnicities.

18 18 In all cases, ANOVA analyses with post-hoc pairwise comparisons4 were conducted to determine whether significant differences existed, and if they did, between which levels. For all results reported below, significance was determined at the p<.01 level. Due to the large sample size, these tests have high power, and are able to reach significance even in the case of small differences. Therefore, effect sizes were also estimated on the omnibus ANOVA for all tests. Across all analyses, effect sizes were always extremely small, ranging from.001 to.06. In no case did the effect size even reach the industry standard for a small effect of , indicating that the differences reported are indeed extremely small. However, while small, the results that are significant are differences that are reliable and systematic. Therefore, despite being small, results finding significant differences between groups may help Jeffco s to focus on important areas for improvements. Of all tests conducted, effect sizes were largest when examining differences in constructs by role, and smallest when examining differences by gender and ethnicity. Additional information on statistical tests (e.g., F-values, p-values, standard deviations, effect sizes, etc.) are available upon request. After examining all results, the following sections aim to provide a summary of interesting and important differences that are most informative. Upon review of all results, the category of schoolbased versus not school-based that was created out of the Current Assignment variable was deemed redundant with, and less informative than, the analyses examining results by role. Thus, the following sections do not present differences based on current assignment, but instead focus on role, length of service, school level, ethnicity and gender. Descriptive results for all categories for all variables, including all levels of the current assignment variable and the articulation area variable, are provided in interactive form via a web-based dashboard. SUPERVISION There were interesting differences in feelings about supervision across employee groups. Figure 1 displays mean scores on the Supervision construct by school role. Leaders had the most positive responses on the Supervision construct, and their mean was significantly higher than all other groups except for the central administrator group. In addition, licensed staff had the lowest scores on the Supervision construct, and this score was significantly lower than central administrators, paraprofessionals, and food service staff, in addition to school leaders. Means between other groups did not differ significantly. It is also important to note that the mean for licensed staff was in the middle of the somewhat positive range, and has the most room for improvement. 4 When an omnibus (i.e., overall) ANOVA is significant, post-hoc pairwise comparisons examine differences on the dependent variable between each level of the independent variable to identify where the significant difference is observed. Post-hoc pairwise comparisons are necessary whenever the independent variable of interest has more than two levels.

19 Supervision Supervision 19 Figure 1. Supervision: Means by Role Licensed Staff Leader Central Admin. Pre-, Age Enrich. Secretary / Tech. Paraprof. Cust./ Land. and Maint. Food Service Bus Driver/ Mech. Means Other Another interesting finding on the Supervision construct is that staff who have been employed with the district for less than one year had significantly more positive perceptions of Supervision than all other staff (Figure 2). While their mean was in the positive range, the mean for all other groups was in the somewhat positive range. Though a small effect, this difference was reliable and systematic. Figure 2. Supervision: Means by Length of Service Less than 1 year 1 to 5 years 6 to 10 years 11 to 15 years 16 to 20 years More than 20 years Means

20 Supervision 20 Another interesting difference by employee category was found based on employee school level. Figure 3 shows means by school level, and significance tests revealed that high school staff had significantly lower ratings on the Supervision construct than every other school level, though all groups scored in the somewhat positive range on this construct. Figure 3. Supervision: Means by Level Elementary Middle High Multi-Level Non-school Location Means There were no differences on the Supervision measure by ethnicity group. Men (3.90) had significantly higher means than women (3.83), but the size of this effect was essentially zero. THE DISTRICT On The District construct, licensed staff again had the lowest scores and their scores were significantly and reliably lower than scores among school leaders, central administration staff, preschool/school-age enrichment staff, paraprofessionals, and those in the other category (see Figure 4). They were not significantly lower than secretaries, custodians/landscapers, food service staff or bus drivers/mechanics. leaders and central administrators were the most satisfied on this construct, with mean scores significantly higher than all other groups.

21 The Distrct 21 Figure 4. The District: Means by Role Licensed Staff Leader Central Admin. Pre-, Age Enrich. Secretary / Tech. Paraprof Cust. / Land. and Maint. Food Service Bus Driver / Mech. Means Other Importantly, licensed staff, secretaries/technicians, custodians/landscapers, food service staff and bus drivers/mechanics had mean scores that fell in the neutral range. This is an important distinction to note, as all other groups had mean scores in the somewhat positive range, and school leaders were close to the positive range. Thus, Jeffco should closely examine the items that comprise The District scale, as there is room for improvement for some of these groups of staff in this area. As with other constructs, new staff were more satisfied on The District construct than staff with longer tenures (Figure 5). Staff with less than 1 year and 1 to 5 years of service at the district scored significantly higher than all other groups, and had means in the somewhat positive range, while all other groups exhibited mean scores in the neutral range. This points to decreasing satisfaction with The District construct that increases as employees spend longer amounts of time working for Jeffco Public s.

22 The District The District 22 Figure 5. The District: Means by Length of Service Less than 1 year 1 to 5 years 6 to 10 years 11 to 15 years 16 to 20 years More than 20 years Means Again, high school staff had lower satisfaction scores than all other groups (except for staff from multilevel schools), and the mean for these employees was in the neutral range (see Figure 6). Non-school staff had the highest satisfaction scores on The District measure, which is consistent with findings reported earlier based on role. Figure 6. The District: Means by Level Elementary Middle High Multi-Level Non-school Location Means Differences existed by ethnicity and gender, but they were extremely small and not particularly meaningful. White employees scored significantly lower on The District construct (3.44) compared to

23 The Strategic Plan 23 employees identifying themselves as any of the other ethnicity categories (3.51), and female staff (3.46) scored significantly higher scores than male staff (3.40). THE STRATEGIC PLAN Satisfaction scores on The Strategic Plan construct followed similar patterns to the other constructs discussed thus far. leaders and central administrators had the highest scores on this construct, and they were significantly higher than every other group (Figure 7). Their means were in the positive and somewhat positive ranges. Mean scores among licensed staff were in the neutral range, and were significantly lower than preschool staff and custodian/landscape and maintenance staff, in addition to being significantly lower than school leaders and central administrators. Figure 7. The Strategic Plan: Means by Role Licensed Staff Leader Central Admin. Pre-, Age Enrich. Secretary / Tech. Paraprof. Cust. / Land. and Maint. Food Service Bus Driver / Mech. Means Other Again, employees in their first year with Jeffco Public s had the highest mean score on The Strategic Plan construct, and this score was significantly higher than all employees with six or more years of experience (Figure 8). Staff with 1 to 5 years of service at the district were more satisfied than staff with between 6 and 15 years, but not higher than staff with 16 or more years of service. Employees who have been with the district for 6 to 10 years had the lowest mean score, and this mean was in the neutral range.

24 The Strategic Plan The Strategic Plan 24 Figure 8. The Strategic Plan: Means by Length of Service Less than 1 year 1 to 5 years 6 to 10 years 11 to 15 years 16 to 20 years More than 20 years Means High school employees were significantly less satisfied with The Strategic Plan than every other group, and their mean score was within the neutral range. All other groups scored The Strategic Plan in the somewhat positive range (Figure 9). Figure 9. The Strategic Plan: Means by Level Elementary Middle High Multi-Level Non-school Location Means Differences by ethnicity and gender were extremely small, though significant. White employees were less satisfied with The Strategic Plan (3.54) than employees in the other ethnicity groups (3.66), and females felt more positively (3.57) than males (3.47), whose mean fell in the neutral range.

25 Resources 25 RESOURCES Mean scores on the Resources construct ranged from 3.47 among licensed staff to 4.13 among school leaders (see Figure 10). Across all tests, differences by role on the Resources construct were the largest, though still small in size (effect size =.06). Licensed staff were significantly less satisfied with resources than all other groups, and their mean fell in the neutral range. Custodians/Landscape and Maintenance staff were also significantly less satisfied with resources than school leaders, preschool staff, secretaries and technicians, and bus drivers/mechanics. This was one construct where school leaders were not significantly more satisfied than other groups. This lower level of satisfaction among licensed staff with resources available is an important finding deserving of further attention. Figure 10. Resources: Means by Role Licensed Staff Leader Central Admin. Pre-, Age Enrich. Secretary / Tech. Paraprof. Cust. / Land. and Maint. Food Service Bus Driver / Mech. Means Other Employees who have been with the district for five years or fewer were significantly more satisfied with resources than are employees who have been with the district for six or more years (See Figure 11). Importantly, employees who have been with the district for six or more years had means in the neutral range on this measure, though brand new staff were in the somewhat positive range.

26 Resources Resources 26 Figure 11. Resources: Means by Length of Service Less than 1 year 1 to 5 years 6 to 10 years 11 to 15 years 16 to 20 years More than 20 years Means On the Resources construct, as with others, high school staff had the lowest satisfaction scores and their mean was well within the neutral range (Figure 12). Non-school staff scored the highest on the Resources construct and were significantly higher than both elementary and high school staff. Again, this lower level of satisfaction with resources among high school employees is a critical finding that warrants further attention. Figure 12. Resources: Means by Level Elementary Middle High Multi-Level Non-school Location Means

27 Effectiveness 27 White employees had a significantly lower mean (3.48) than employees from other ethnicity categories (3.62), but there were no differences in feelings towards resources based on gender. EFFECTIVENESS Effectiveness was the highest rated construct on average across all employee groups, and this is reflected when examining scores by different employee subgroups. Means on effectiveness were high across all groups, only barely falling below the positive range for secretaries/technicians, custodians/landscape and maintenance staff, and bus drivers/mechanics (Figure 13). leaders scored the highest on Effectiveness, and were significantly higher than all other groups except for preschool, school age enrichment staff, who were also higher than licensed staff, secretaries/technicians, custodians/landscape and maintenance, and bus drivers/mechanics. On this construct, licensed staff were not among the least satisfied as they were in almost all other constructs, and had scores in the positive range. Figure 13. Effectiveness: Means by Role Licensed Staff Leader Central Admin. Pre-, Age Enrich. Secretary / Tech. Paraprof. Cust. / Land. and Maint. Food Service Bus Driver / Mech. Means Other New staff were still the most satisfied groups when examining Effectiveness by length of service, but all groups were in the positive range (Figure 14). Staff with one to five years with the district were also significantly more satisfied than staff that have been with the district for 6 to 10 years.

28 Effectiveness Effectiveness 28 Figure 14. Effectiveness: Means by Length of Service Less than 1 year 1 to 5 years 6 to 10 years 11 to 15 years 16 to 20 years More than 20 years Means On the Effectiveness construct, elementary school and middle school staff were the most satisfied, and were significantly higher than the other groups. However, high school staff, multi-level staff, and nonschool staff still demonstrated means that were at the very high end of the somewhat positive range (Figure 15). Figure 15. Effectiveness: Means by Level Elementary Middle High Multi-Level Non-school Location Means Means among females were significantly higher than means among males (4.08 compared to 4.02, respectively), and there were no differences by ethnicity.

29 Rewards 29 REWARDS Across all constructs, Jeffco Public s employees gave the lowest overall ratings on the Rewards construct, though with an overall average of 3.33, this was still in the neutral range overall. Almost all groups, except for school leaders, central administrators, and bus drivers/mechanics, provided ratings that placed their means in the neutral range, and among pre-school, school-age enrichment staff the mean score was in the negative range (see Figure 16). These scores among pre-school employees were significantly lower than every other employee group. Again, school leaders and central administrators had the highest scores, but were on the lower end of the somewhat positive range. There were various significant differences by group (e.g., licensed staff were significantly more satisfied than paraprofessionals, school leaders were significantly more satisfied than licensed staff, pre-school staff, secretaries/technicians, paraprofessionals, food service staff, etc.). The larger picture that is more important is simply the pattern of results showing lower levels of satisfaction on this construct, particularly among pre-school, school-age enrichment staff. Figure 16. Rewards: Means by Role Licensed Staff Leader Central Admin. Pre-, Age Enrich. Secretary / Tech. Paraprof. Cust. / Land. and Maint. Food Service Bus Driver / Mech. Means Other When examining responses on the Rewards construct by length of service, it is clear that there is room for improvement, as mean scores fall in the neutral range across all categories. While staff with less than one year with the district continue to report significantly more satisfaction than all other groups, even their average score did not break into the somewhat positive range (see Figure 17). None of the other length of service categories differed significantly from each other.

30 Rewards Rewards 30 Figure 17. Rewards: Means by Length of Service Less than 1 year 1 to 5 years 6 to 10 years 11 to 15 years 16 to 20 years More than 20 years Means While means were in the neutral range across all groups by school level, middle school staff reported significantly higher scores than elementary and high school staff (Figure 18). There were no other significant differences by school level, and there were no differences by ethnicity or gender. Figure 18. Rewards: Means by Level Elementary Middle High Multi-Level Non-school Location Means

31 Diversity 31 DIVERSITY leaders provided the highest ratings on the Diversity construct, and were significantly higher than all groups other than central administrators (see Figure 19). Central administrators were significantly more satisfied on the diversity construct than all groups but for preschool/school-age enrichment staff and paraprofessionals. Bus drivers/mechanics had the lowest overall mean on the Diversity construct, and were significantly lower than all groups but pre-school/school-age enrichment staff, secretaries/technicians, custodians/landscape and maintenance staff and food service staff. Figure 19. Diversity: Means by Role Licensed Staff Leader Central Admin. Pre-, Age Enrich. Secretary / Tech. Paraprof. Cust. / Land. and Maint. Food Service Bus Driver/ Mech. Means Other Again, first year staff and those with up to five years with the district were significantly more satisfied on the Diversity measure than staff with longer tenures, and only staff in their first year scored in the positive range, while all other groups scored in the somewhat positive range (Figure 20).

32 Diversity Diversity 32 Figure 20. Diversity: Means by Length of Service Less than 1 year 1 to 5 years 6 to 10 years 11 to 15 years 16 to 20 years More than 20 years Means While all groups had relatively high satisfaction scores on the Diversity measure, elementary and middle school staff had significantly higher scores than high school, multi-level, and non-school staff. This was one measure on which high school staff did not have the lowest satisfaction score (Figure 21). Figure 21. Diversity: Means by Level Elementary Middle High Multi-Level Non-school Location Means White employees assigned significantly higher satisfaction ratings on the Diversity measure than did staff of other ethnicity categories (3.95 compared to 3.79). There were no differences on the Diversity measure by gender.

33 Values 33 JEFFCO REPRESENTING DISTRICT VALUES/INITIATIVES leaders and central administrators again had the highest mean scores, this time on the Values/Initiatives construct. While school leaders had significantly higher scores on this measure than all other groups (see Figure 22), central administrators were higher than all groups but for preschool, school-age enrichment staff. Licensed staff were among the lowest scoring groups, though still in the somewhat positive range, along with bus drivers/mechanics, and this mean was significantly lower than paraprofessionals in addition to being lower than school leaders and central administrators. Figure 22. Values: Means by Role Licensed Staff Leader Central Admin. Pre-, Age Enrich. Secretary / Tech. Paraprof. Cust. / Land. and Maint. Food Service Bus Driver / Mech. Means Other Consistent with all other constructs, first-year staff had significantly higher scores on the Values construct than every other employee group, and staff with one to five years of experience were significantly more positive on this measure than groups with longer tenures (Figure 23). All groups, however, scored in the somewhat positive range.