standard 3 final evidence

Standard Three

Home and community Relations and Student

Services

Evidence

*Please have your grades turned into Rosalie Rich by the time & date listed above. 8/28/2013

Whittier Christian High School

Calendar/Grades Schedule

2013-14

Short Weeks Reason Type of Schedule

Aug 20-23 Special Schedule Classes Meet 4x (7 period day schedule)

Aug 26-30

Special Schedule Regular Rotation (except 5th

period which will meet 3x & catch up next week

Sept 2-6 Labor Day Week Spiritual Emphasis week classes meet 2x (except 5th

& 7th

meet 3x); Friday dismissal

at 12:10 – afternoon Professional Development

Sept 9-13 Special Schedule Regular Rotation –early dismissal Tuesday for Back to School Night (7th

meets 3x)

Oct 14-18

All-School Testing Oct 16

Rotation schedule with each class meeting 3x; 12:00 dismissal Wednesday Oct 16

followed by Professional Development, assembly or pep rally on Friday (12:10

dismissal)

Nov 4-8

Preview Night Nov 7

Special Schedule – classes meet 4x; early dismissal Thursday at 1:45 for Preview

Night; Friday dismissal 1:45 (periods 1-6 on Friday with each class 45 minutes)

Nov 11-15 Veterans’ Day Holiday No school Monday; Special schedule with classes meeting 3x; Veterans’ assembly

on Tues. Nov. 12 at 9 am; Chapel on Wednesday

Nov 25-29 Thanksgiving Holiday Professional Development Monday & Tuesday; no school Wednesday - Friday

Dec 16-20 Finals Week 7 period day schedule Mon. & Tues.; Finals Dec 18-20

Jan 6 –10 School Resumes Jan 8 Staff Professional Development Mon. & Tues.; 7 period day schedule Wed.-Fri

Jan 20-24 King Holiday&Spiritual

Emphasis Week

Special schedule with classes meeting 2x (Jan 21-24) Choices Conference chapels

with noon dismissal on Friday; Professional Development Friday afternoon

Feb 17-21 Presidents’ Holiday Feb 17 No school Monday Feb 17; Rotation schedule with each class meeting 3x; Friday

Feb 21 12:10 dismissal – half day Professional Development

Apr 14-21 Easter Break No School Monday April 21; Rotation schedule with classes meeting 3x; early

dismissal on Friday at 12:10 - half day Professional Development

Apr 28 - May 2 WCHS Serve Day Rotation schedule with classes meeting 3x; early dismissal on Thursday at 12:10 –

followed by Professional Development; school-wide service day at various locations

on Friday

May 19- 23 Finals Exam Week 7 period day schedule Mon., Tues. & Wed.; Final Exams Thurs. & Fri, May 22-23

Progress Report/Grades Schedule

*Time & Date Due Type of Grades Date Mailed

8:00 am / Sep 17 1st quarter progress report (C- and below) Sep18

8:00 am / Oct 17 1st quarter grades (all students) Oct 18

8:00 am / Nov 13 1st semester progress report (C- and below) Nov 14

8:00 am / Jan 8 1st semester grades (all students)

10:00 am / Jan 8 1st semester grade verification sheets Jan 9

8:00 am / Feb10 3rd

quarter progress report (C- and below) Feb 11

8:00 am / Mar18 3rd

quarter grades (all students) Mar19

8:00 am / Apr 23 2nd

semester progress report (C- & below) Apr 24

8:00 am / May 28 2nd

semester grades (all students)

10:00 am / May 28 2nd

semester grade verification sheets May 29

For

Parents Students&Juniors

PLANNINGnightApril

4“A night to Plan & Prepare For Senior Year!”

April 4th6:30pm - 8:00pmHerald HallDinner will be served!

TOPICS DISCUSSED:

RSVP!As dinner will be served,

please RSVP by March 26th to Lynn Weber. Dinner will include 2 parents + 1 Junior student max.

[email protected]) 694.3803 x310

MandatoryEvent

This event is hosted by the WCHS Counseling Department. As Junior year is an important year for college planning, we desire that each junior student and parent be present for this event! For more information, please contact Lynn Weber, School Secretary or your counselor.

College Applications

Family Connection

ResuméBuilding Letters of

Rec. forCollege

Senior Year

COLLEGEPLANNING

FinancialAid

mailto:[email protected]





Communications for Whittier Christian High School

www.wchs.com

https://twitter.com/wchsheralds

http://www.oninstagram.com/profile/wchsheralds

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Whittier-Christian-High-School/127439853995564

https://wchs.schoology.com

http://www.wchs.com

https://twitter.com/wchsheralds

http://www.oninstagram.com/profile/wchsheralds

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Whittier-Christian-High-School/127439853995564

https://wchs.schoology.com

12/10/14, 10:54 AMSurvey Responses

Page 1 of 2https://succeed.naviance.com/connections/surveys/view_responses.php?svid=57458&start_year=2018&end_year=2018&end_year=2018

survey list -> view responses Printer-friendly summary Full detail excel csv

Freshmen All School Testing Day Survey Summary Report (2017 - 2017)

Class years: 2017 to 2017 Response set: 1 Responder type: student Change

In-progress: 18 Completed: 34 Not Started: 123 1. Was the computer turned on and working when you entered the lab?

Yes 94.1% (32)No 5.9% (2)TOTAL RESPONDED 100% (34) view details

2. Did the teacher give you clear and concise instructions for how to get started with your inventories?Yes 85.3% (29)No 14.7% (5)TOTAL RESPONDED 100% (34) view details

3. Did you remember the email and password you used to sign up for family connection?Yes 67.6% (23)No 32.4% (11)TOTAL RESPONDED 100% (34) view details

4. Did your inventory results reflect how you perceive yourself?Yes 61.8% (21)No 38.2% (13)TOTAL RESPONDED 100% (34) view details

5. Which inventory most accurately described you?MI Advantage 64.7% (22)Career Interest Inventory 35.3% (12)TOTAL RESPONDED 100% (34) view details

6. How much time did you have to explore careers after finishing both of your inventories?Less than 5 minutes 35.3% (12)5-10 minutes 26.5% (9)11-20 minutes 20.6% (7)More than 20 minutes 17.6% (6)TOTAL RESPONDED 100% (34) view details

7. Overall, did you enjoy Mr. Thomas Purtell's Chick-Fil-A presentation?Yes, very much! 29.4% (10)No 29.4% (10)Somewhat 41.2% (14)TOTAL RESPONDED 100% (34) view details

8. Did you feel that the presentation was interesting and relevant?Yes 29.4% (10)No 38.2% (13)

Somewhat 32.4% (11)TOTAL RESPONDED 100% (34) view details

9. Do you feel that Mr. Purtell's presentation related to Whittier Christian's theme of the year; "Finding Life"?Yes 29.4% (10)No 23.5% (8)Somewhat 47.1% (16)TOTAL RESPONDED 100% (34) view details

10. What type of guest speakers or topics would you like to see in the future?Total responses: 34 (65%) view details

11. In the Field Activities rotation with Mr. Burbank, what was your favorite group activity? Why?Total responses: 34 (65%) view details

12. Which activity did you find the most challenging? Why?Total responses: 34 (65%) view details

13. Did your teachers get involved in the activities?Yes 54.5% (18)No 45.5% (15)TOTAL RESPONDED 100% (33) view details

14. Overall, would you say that the day ran smoothly? (Did you know where you needed to be, what station you would go to

Students Planner Scholarships Colleges Careers Reports Search for StudentConnections

https://succeed.naviance.com/connections/surveys/index.php

https://succeed.naviance.com/connections/surveys/print-responses.php?&svid=57458&response_set=1&responder_type=student&start_year=2017&end_year=2017

https://succeed.naviance.com/connections/surveys/export_responses.php?svid=57458&response_set=1&responder_type=student&start_year=2017&end_year=2017

https://succeed.naviance.com/connections/surveys/view_respondents.php?svid=57458&qid=662504&response_set=1&responder_type=student&start_year=2017&end_year=2017&district_zone=&district_school=













https://succeed.naviance.com/main/dashboards/dashboard.php

https://succeed.naviance.com/studentsmain/index.php

https://succeed.naviance.com/success-planner/dashboard/index

https://succeed.naviance.com/scholarshipsmain/scholarships.php

https://succeed.naviance.com/collegesmain/index.php

https://succeed.naviance.com/careers/index.php

https://succeed.naviance.com/reporting-framework/reports/index

https://succeed.naviance.com/connections/surveys/view_responses.php?svid=57458&start_year=2018&end_year=2018&end_year=2018#search

https://succeed.naviance.com/connections/surveys/view_responses.php?svid=57458&start_year=2018&end_year=2018&end_year=2018#setup

https://succeed.naviance.com/connections/surveys/view_responses.php?svid=57458&start_year=2018&end_year=2018&end_year=2018#

https://succeed.naviance.com/connections/index.php



14. Overall, would you say that the day ran smoothly? (Did you know where you needed to be, what station you would go tofirst, etc?)Yes 100% (34)No 0% (0)TOTAL RESPONDED 100% (34) view details

15. Did you enjoy All School Testing Day?Yes 85.3% (29)No 14.7% (5)TOTAL RESPONDED 100% (34) view details

16. Did you leave All School Testing Day having learned something new about yourself?Yes 61.8% (21)No 38.2% (13)TOTAL RESPONDED 100% (34) view details

17. Did you leave All School Testing Day feeling excited and hopeful for the future?Yes 58.8% (20)No 41.2% (14)TOTAL RESPONDED 100% (34) view details

18. Please rate the following on a scale of 1-5 with 1 = Very Poor and 5 = ExcellentAverage Rank

1 2 3 4 5 Computer Lab Rotation (3.6)Guest Speaker Rotation (3.2)Field Activities Rotation (3.7)Overall Experience (3.7)TOTAL RESPONDED: 34 view details

19. Additional Comments/Recommendations/Concerns?Total responses: 7 (13%) view details

Copyright © 2014, Hobsons Inc. | Terms of Service | Privacy Signed in as Joel Nunnally from WCHS







https://succeed.naviance.com/tos.php

https://succeed.naviance.com/privacy.php




Freshman Fall Workshop Summary Report (2018 - 2018)


In-progress: 1 Completed: 73 Not Started: 59 1. Have you started thinking about college?

Yes 82.2% (60)No 17.8% (13)TOTAL RESPONDED 100% (73) view details

2. How important are your grades are from freshman year?1 - Not important at all 0% (0)2 - Somewhat important 9.6% (7)3 - Important 38.4% (28)4 - Very Important 52.1% (38)TOTAL RESPONDED 100% (73) view details

3. What study habit(s) do you struggle with the most?Concentration 39.7% (29)Time Management 46.6% (34)Studying for Tests 42.5% (31)Goal Setting 5.5% (4)Taking Good Notes 11% (8)Completing Assignments 5.5% (4)Organizational Skills 23.3% (17)Motivation 21.9% (16)TOTAL RESPONDED 100% (73) view details

4. What study habit(s) would you like to improve?Concentration 45.2% (33)Time Management 45.2% (33)Studying for Tests 39.7% (29)Goal Setting 15.1% (11)Note Taking 16.4% (12)Completing Assignments 11% (8)Oranization 21.9% (16)Motivation 27.4% (20)TOTAL RESPONDED 100% (73) view details























!

WCHS College Advisement Department! Revised Fall 2014

COLLEGE ADVISEMENT DEPARTMENTGuaranteed services


Whittier Christian High School boasts a dynamic College Advisement Department that guides students toward educational and career success. Meeting with every student, every semester, our College Advisors work alongside students helping them to discover and use their God-given talents. From 9th through 12th grade, students enjoy individual attention that ensures they are well informed about their academic progress, career awareness and the college application process. As a result, WCHS graduates are prepared for the transition to college or vocational school. In addition to the accessibility of our College Advisors, we provide students and parents with the necessary tools to make decisions for the next step. For example, over the course of each student’s high school journey, we offer several college planning and spiritual growth opportunities, including on-campus college visits, career workshops, detailed information sessions on SAT and ACT tests, and a personalized online portal (Naviance) that simplifies organization of college planning steps. Together students and parents can discover unique aspects of the student’s identity and career interests, correlating with specific colleges and potential majors. Simply put, College Advisors at Whittier Christian High School personally care about students and desire to see them discover God’s calling for their future.

Our Advisement Perspective

Whittier Christian High SchoolAdvisement Department Timeline

!!!*All Fall and Spring Meetings are documented and sent electronically to students

and parents/guardians through Naviance. !Placement Testing (spring 8th grade): incoming students take a placement test to

best determine courses where students will be most successful. !Freshmen Course Scheduling (spring 8th grade): small group orientation for

students and parents to review WCHS graduation requirements, review of placement testing results and schedule courses for freshmen year. Information regarding services offered by the College Advisement Department as well as academic and extra-curricular opportunities on campus. !

Welcome Day (August): event for students and parents to help with a successful transition into high school. Naviance log-in information provided to students and parents and a preview of how Naviance is utilized at WCHS. !

Freshmen Fall Meeting (September/October): Four-year Plan is created for students to understand graduation requirements, academic/course options and timeline of four years at WCHS. !

Freshmen Career Day (October): Career Interest Inventory and Personality Inventory taken through Naviance along with motivational/career presentation. !

Freshmen Spring Meeting (February/March): individual 30-minute sessions with student and parents. Families receive copy and explanation of student’s current transcript and graduation status report. Families also receive a short tutorial of Naviance and resources available. Courses are scheduled for Sophomore year. !! !!!!!!!!


GRADE 9

Guaranteed services:

!*All Fall and Spring Meetings are documented and sent electronically to students

and parents/guardians through Naviance. !ASPIRE Testing (October): students begin preparation for standardized testing

(SAT/ACT) for college admission. ASPIRE is a practice assessment for the ACT. Results distributed and explained in January along with introduction to standardized test prep options. !

Sophomore Fall Meeting (November/December): individual meetings to discuss current academic progress, review transcript and graduation status report, explain basic college admission requirements and create tentative plan for junior year courses. !

Sophomore Spring Meeting (March-May): individual meetings to discuss current academic progress, review transcript and graduation status report, determine individual goals and requirements for college admission and schedule courses for junior year. Begin adding colleges into “Colleges I’m Thinking About” list and review PrepMe, a free SAT/ACT online prep course, in Naviance. !

Princeton Review Assessment (PRA) (January & April): assessment developed by Princeton Review to help determine wether the ACT or the SAT is best suited for individual success. Test prep options are discussed and encouraged. !!!!

*All Fall and Spring Meetings are documented and sent electronically to students and parents/guardians through Naviance. !

PSAT (October): students continue preparation for standardized testing (SAT/ACT) for college admission. PSAT is a practice assessment for the SAT. Results distributed and explained in January along with reminder of standardized test prep options.

Junior Fall Meeting (November/December): individual meetings to discuss current academic progress, review transcript and graduation status report, explain UC and CSU eligibility requirements/report and create tentative plan for senior year courses. SAT/ACT dates and test prep options promoted. !


GRADE 10

GRADE 11

College Financial Aid Night (January): presentation given to students and parents from a college financial aid department on the college financial aid process, including the FAFSA, scholarships and federal/state aid. Families will also have the opportunity to hear from an outside financial planning organization to help plan on an individual level for college financing. !

Junior Spring Meeting (January/February): individual meetings to discuss current academic progress, review transcript and graduation status report, explain UC and CSU eligibility requirements/report and schedule courses for senior year. SAT/ACT testing and requirements discussed and students are strongly encouraged to register for spring dates. !

College Planning Night (March): dinner event for students and parents. Topics discussed include financial aid, college applications, senior year coursework, letters of recommendation, resume building and college planning tools in Naviance. !

Princeton Review Assessment (PRA) (January & April): assessment developed by Princeton Review to help determine wether the ACT or the SAT is best suited for individual success. Test prep options are discussed and encouraged. !! !!!

*All Fall and Spring Meetings are documented and sent electronically to students and parents/guardians through Naviance. !

Senior Fall Meeting (September/October): individual meetings to discuss current academic progress, review transcript and graduation status report, calculate UC and CSU eligibility requirements on report. Finalize “Colleges I’m Applying To” list in Naviance and review application process, deadlines and requirements. Tools such as Scholarship List, Career and Major exploration and College Search options available on Naviance are discussed. Resume completion and letters of recommendation process explained. SAT/ACT testing and requirements discussed and final date options are given. !

Senior Career Conference (October): event for seniors to explore and gain valuable insight to various careers. Based upon senior career interest, approximately 35 career representatives present a practical understanding of their profession.


GRADE 12

!College Financial Aid Night (January): presentation given to students and parents

from a college financial aid department on the college financial aid process, including the FAFSA, scholarships and federal/state aid. Families will also have the opportunity to hear from an outside financial planning organization to help plan on an individual level for college financing. !

Senior Spring Meeting (March-May): review of transcript and graduation status to determine diploma standing. Collect data, and input into Naviance, regarding college applications, plans for future and scholarships offered. !!

College Advisement Additional Services !Open Door Policy: College Advisors are available on a walk-in/sign-up basis to

discuss any needs or concerns a student may have (socially, academically, spiritually and personally). Resources are available, distributed and referred to as needed. !

Appointments: College Advisors are available to schedule appointments with families regarding any academic, social, or personal concerns. !

Course and schedule changes: students are able to discuss and make changes to their schedules in accordance with high school policies, diploma standing and college requirements. !

Progress reports and learning assistance: students in low academic standing are met with individually every grading period to discuss available options for success (e.g. tutoring, communication with teacher, Directed Studies, organizational and study skills). !

Workshops and events: throughout the school year, College Advisement offers grade specific workshops, college fairs and visits, presentations and other informational sessions. !!!!!! !!


College

To ALL Guardians and/or Homestay Families:

You are required to attend the:

2014


International Student SEVIS Seminar and

Homestay Workshop

Attendance at this presentation is mandatory for all Whittier Christian High School international students, guardians and homestay families. Whittier Christian administrators and counselors will go over the latest SEVIS requirements and regulations with special attention given to maintaining F-1 visa status and enrollment at Whittier Christian High. There will also be discussion and information concerning WCHS school policies, college preparation and related academic requirements, SEVIS changes, and school technology regulations.

Monday October 27, 2014

6:00-8:00 p.m.

Herald Hall

(Attendance will be taken)


International Student Orientation August 10 – 13, 2014

English Language Class ** Introduction to Bible Work with College Advisors ** Technology Training

American Culture PresentationAND DISNEYLAND!

SCHEDULE OF EVENTS

Sunday: ➢ Welcome BBQ – 6 pm

o Students and Host Families invited

Monday: ➢ Orientation Events – 8:30 am – 2 pm

o Lunch provided

Tuesday: ➢ Orientation Events – 8:30 am – 2 pm

o Lunch provided

Wednesday: ➢ Trip to Disneyland – 8 am – 10 pm

COST: $500

For more information, please contact Phil Underwood, WCHS Int’l Student Coordinator * (562) 694-3803, ext. 309 * [email protected]




Life Calling POST Survey Summary Report (2015 - 2015)


In-progress: 2 Completed: 123 Not Started: 52 1. Having completed a semester of Life Calling, this course helped me choose a major for college

Strongly disagree 3.3% (4)Somewhat disagree 5.7% (7)Neither agree not disagree 17.1% (21)Somewhat agree 53.7% (66)Strongly agree 20.3% (25)TOTAL RESPONDED 100% (123) view details

2. Life Calling has helped me explore my strengths, weaknesses, and skillsStrongly disagree 1.6% (2)Somewhat disagree 2.4% (3)Neither agree nor disagree 0% (0)Somewhat agree 34.1% (42)Strongly agree 61.8% (76)TOTAL RESPONDED 100% (123) view details

3. Life Calling helped to show me the value of my own self-worth and the worth of others based on God-designed individualuniquenessStrongly disagree 0.8% (1)Somewhat disagree 8.1% (10)Neither agree nor disagree 12.2% (15)Somewhat agree 40.7% (50)Strongly agree 38.2% (47)TOTAL RESPONDED 100% (123) view details

4. Life Calling has helped me to understand the biblical, theoretical, and historical foundations that leads to an understandingof a life calling and the development of a Christian way of lifeStrongly disagree 4.1% (5)Somewhat disagree 6.5% (8)Neither agree nor disagree 24.4% (30)Somewhat agree 43.9% (54)Strongly agree 21.1% (26)TOTAL RESPONDED 100% (123) view details

5. Life Calling taught me ways to apply strategies that will effectively manage your lives in ways that lead to academic successStrongly disagree 1.6% (2)Somewhat disagree 13.8% (17)Neither agree nor disagree 30.1% (37)Somewhat agree 35.8% (44)

Strongly agree 18.7% (23)TOTAL RESPONDED 100% (123) view details

6. Life Calling helped me to explore a career that I want or I have been thinking about in the near futureStrongly disagree 2.4% (3)Somewhat disagree 6.5% (8)Neither agree not disagree 14.6% (18)Somewhat agree 26.8% (33)Strongly agree 49.6% (61)TOTAL RESPONDED 100% (123) view details

7. Naviance/Family Connection has been helpful in helping me explore my future goalsStrongly disagree 4.1% (5)Somewhat disagree 7.3% (9)Neither agree nor disagree 20.3% (25)Somewhat agree 32.5% (40)Strongly agree 35.8% (44)TOTAL RESPONDED 100% (123) view details

8. Family Connection was easy to use and manageStrongly disagree 2.4% (3)

























Strongly disagree 2.4% (3)Somewhat disagree 13% (16)Neither agree nor disagree 12.2% (15)Somewhat agree 28.5% (35)Strongly agree 43.9% (54)TOTAL RESPONDED 100% (123) view details

9. Knowing my personality and interest type helps me to choose activities/careers that interest meStrongly disagree 1.6% (2)Somewhat disagree 4.9% (6)Neither agree nor disagree 7.3% (9)Somewhat agree 36.6% (45)Strongly agree 49.6% (61)TOTAL RESPONDED 100% (123) view details

10. Because of having a semester of Life Calling, I understand more of who I am and what I want to doDefinitely 40.7% (50)Yes, but I need more help/time 47.2% (58)I'm not sure/still confused 6.5% (8)I didn't learn anything about myself 5.7% (7)TOTAL RESPONDED 100% (123) view details

11. As a result of taken the Life Calling course, I have a pretty good idea of what career(s) / Major(s) is best suited for meDefinitely 40.7% (50)Somewhat, still working on it 51.2% (63)I have no idea 8.1% (10)TOTAL RESPONDED 100% (123) view details

12. I am excited to work towards my future goalsStrongly disagree 7.3% (9)Somewhat disagree 1.6% (2)Neither agree nor disagree 8.1% (10)

Somehwat agree 20.3% (25)Strongly agree 62.6% (77)TOTAL RESPONDED 100% (123) view details

13. What did you like most about Life Calling?Total responses: 107 (86%) view details

14. What could be done to make the Life Calling course more helpful?Total responses: 101 (81%) view details














Life Calling Pre-Survey Summary Report (2016 - 2016)


In-progress: 3 Completed: 101 Not Started: 58 1. I understand who I am and what I want to do in life

Definitely 15.8% (16)Not sure, would love help figuring it out though 77.2% (78)I'm really confused and lost 3% (3)This question terrifies me 4% (4)TOTAL RESPONDED 100% (101) view details

2. I have a pretty good idea of what career(s)/ major(s) is best suited for me!Definitely 18.8% (19)Somewhat, still working on it 65.3% (66)I have no idea 15.8% (16)TOTAL RESPONDED 100% (101) view details

3. I believe I have a calling in my life to do something great for God!Yes, I believe it! 54.5% (55)Yes, I somewhat believe it. 33.7% (34)I'm not sure 10.9% (11)No, I don't believe this at all 1% (1)TOTAL RESPONDED 100% (101) view details






















INTERNATIONAL STUDENT ORIENTATION

Sunday, August 10

6:00 pm Welcome BBQ for students, guardians, and home stays

NOTES: • Hamburgers, hot dogs, chips, drinks • Faculty, Staff & Admin barbecues • Welcome by Carl • Fun quick games with prizes (WCHS bracelets, lanyards, etc.)

o First to enroll o Last to enroll o First to arrive at event o Draw name from hat

• Pass out t-shirts o Create a logo/design for WCHS International Student o Order a variety of sizes

Monday, August 11

SCHEDULE: 8:30 am Registration, Opening Remarks, Ice Breakers 9:00 am Intro to Bible 10:30 am Break 10:50 am Ice Breakers 11:00 am iPad/Technology Orientation 12:00 pm Lunch 1:00 pm School Spirit Orientation 2:00 pm Dismissal

NOTES: • Registration & Opening (Scot Burbank?)

o Donuts & Juice o Fun Intro Ice Breakers

• Intro to Bible (Frank Hwu, Debbie Tweedy) o Open with movie (Jesus of Nazareth, The Gospel of John, Genesis, ??) o 15 minutes from Frank Hwu,

▪ Christianity as a World Religion o 15 minutes from Debbie Tweedy

▪ Why is Bible important to WCHS? ▪ What are the “expectations” for learning Bible at WCHS?

• Scripture memorization

• Christian service • Chapel

• iPad/Technology Orientation (Chris Sanita, Ed Tech Person) o Technical

▪ Load school apps and MDM ▪ Acceptable Use Policies

o Philosophical ▪ Why iPads ▪ Expectations for use

• Lunch o Provided by WCHS

• School Spirit, Athletics, and Fine Arts (Kylie Swanson, Rol Esslinger, Jon Genberg – and students) o Introduce ASB and Class Councils

▪ What do they do? ▪ How can you get involved?

• School Events (Homecoming, Prom, Pep Rallies) • Clubs

o Introduce Rol Esslinger and athletes ▪ Benefits of athletics ▪ What sports are offered

• What happens each season • Practical info about games & practices (times,

transportation, etc.) o Introduce Jon Genberg and students

▪ Fine Arts demonstrations/performances ▪ What is offered and how do I get involved?

Tuesday, August 12

SCHEDULE: 8:30 Recap and Ice Breakers 9:00 Intro to English 10:30 Break 10:50 Ice Breakers 11:00 College Advising & Naviance 12:00 Lunch 1:00 Pep Rally for Rules 2:00 Dismissal

NOTES: • Recap and Ice Breakers (Scot Burbank)

o Donuts & Juice

o Fun Intro Ice Breakers

• Intro to English (Mike Posey, Belva Leffel, Shannon Northcott) o English expectations at WCHS

▪ Reading, writing, speaking in English at all times ▪ Research and plagiarism ▪ Placement levels

o Break into smaller groups by speaking levels ▪ Need TOEFL and SLATE test scores ▪ ESL Activities and practice ▪ Only allow English speaking

• College Advising and Naviance (Joel Nunnally, Katie Hunter, Robin Waite) o What to expect from your College Advisors o Intro to Naviance and Family Connection o Intro to Schoology (formerly Edline) o Important to remember…

▪ Attendance ▪ Grades ▪ Building your profile

• Pep Rally for Rules (Joy Karavedas, ASB, Cheer, Band) o Fun way to present the rules about WCHS Student Life

▪ Dress Code Fashion Show (do’s and don’ts) ▪ Detention Bingo

• Everyone gets a card • First one to score all the reasons to get detention wins

▪ Other Fun Pep Rally Games • Teach students cheers & chants

Wednesday, August 13

9:00 am Meet at WCHS for Disneyland (all day)

NOTES: • Schedule busses with Scott Baxter • Everyone goes on the bus and returns on the bus • Invite current Int’l students who are already in US • Include ASB students

MONDAY DECEMBER 10th!

6:30pm - 8:00pmin Herald Hall

Taught by the Princeton Review!

For more information please contact Lynn Weber at [email protected] or 562.694.3803 x310

PLANNightReceive your test results!

&



PRASAT vs ACT... which test is best suited for you???

Take a full-length test with SAT & ACT questions from the Princeton Review!Measure your natural testing abilities or evaluate your test taking strengths & weaknesses

Where:! Whittier Christian High School, RM19!!When:! Saturday, April 5th!!Time:! 8:00am - 12:30pm!!Cost:!! $25

NOTE - Follow-up Score Review:!Thursday, April 10th 12:10pm - 1:10pm in RM 19!

• Receive a detailed score report showing strengths and weaknesses!

• Get free information, including testing techniques and review the current state of college admissions!

• Parents encouraged to attend

Please bring a calculator and two sharpened #2 pencils

Questions? Please email [email protected]

Fill out the information below and turn it in to your College Advisor no later than April 3rd

2014

TestP

RA

TE

ST



ResultsNight

Receive your test results and learn how to best prepare for the SAT!

TUESDAY DECEMBER 13th!

6:30pm - 7:30pmin Herald Hall

Taught by the Princeton Review!

For more information please contact Lynn Weber at [email protected] or 562.694.3803 x310



SAVE THESE DATES

SUNDAY -

AUGUST 9 – 12 2015

INTERNATIONAL STUDENT

ORIENTATIONWHITTIER CHRISTIAN HIGH SCHOOL

Required for all NEW International Students

COST:

$500



survey list -> view responses Printer-friendly summary Full detail excel csv Career Interest Survey Summary Report (2013 - 2015)


In-progress: 20 Completed: 249 Not Started: 217 1. BUSINESS

Business/Mgmt 62.9% (100)Advertising/Marketing 37.7% (60)Economics/Accounting 25.2% (40)Math/Statistics 13.2% (21)Accounting 10.7% (17)Economics/Finance 17.6% (28)Hotel Management/Hospitality 19.5% (31)Real Estate 17.6% (28)TOTAL RESPONDED 100% (159) view details

2. FINE ARTS/SPECIALTYMusic 37.1% (49)Art 24.2% (32)Fashion Design Merchandising 23.5% (31)Commercial Art/Design 16.7% (22)Cosmetology 8.3% (11)Theatre/Dance 22.7% (30)Interior Design 12.1% (16)Culinary Arts 12.9% (17)Massage Therapist 4.5% (6)Automotive Technology 5.3% (7)Photography 20.5% (27)TOTAL RESPONDED 100% (132) view details

3. MEDICALVeterinary Medicine 17.1% (21)Animal Science 14.6% (18)Dental Assistant 3.3% (4)Dental 12.2% (15)Nursing 30.1% (37)Medical Physician 34.1% (42)Medical/Lab Science Tech 11.4% (14)Optometry/Ophthalmology 9.8% (12)Radiological Imaging 10.6% (13)Medical Physician's Assistant 12.2% (15)Chiropractic 7.3% (9)Surgical Technician 17.9% (22)Physical Therapy 31.7% (39)TOTAL RESPONDED 100% (123) view details

4. LAWLawyer/Paralegal 43.4% (36)Criminal Justice 49.4% (41)Law Enforcement 36.1% (30)TOTAL RESPONDED 100% (83) view details

5. HUMAN SERVICES/PSYCHOLOGYSocial Work/Human Services 46.7% (43)Psychology/Psychiatry 76.1% (70)TOTAL RESPONDED 100% (92) view details

6. ENGINEERING/ARCHITECTUREEngineering 71% (49)Architecture 47.8% (33)TOTAL RESPONDED 100% (69) view details

7. TECHNOLOGYComputer Science 38.8% (33)
























Game Design 38.8% (33)Electronics 29.4% (25)Web Design 18.8% (16)Graphic Design 43.5% (37)TOTAL RESPONDED 100% (85) view details

8. RELIGION/THEOLOGYReligion/Philosophy 30.2% (19)Christian Services/Missionary 63.5% (40)Pastor/Youth Ministries 36.5% (23)TOTAL RESPONDED 100% (63) view details

9. ATHLETICSSports Management 60.3% (44)Athletics/Coaching 54.8% (40)Physical Education 32.9% (24)TOTAL RESPONDED 100% (73) view details

10. EDUCATION/CHILD CAREEducation (teacher, administrator, counselor, psychologist) 78.9% (56)Child Care 36.6% (26)TOTAL RESPONDED 100% (71) view details

11. MILITARY/PROTECTIVE SERVICEMarines 15.7% (11)Navy 12.9% (9)Army 18.6% (13)Coast Guard 4.3% (3)Air Force 20% (14)Police 32.9% (23)Fire 10% (7)

Investigator 28.6% (20)FBI 42.9% (30)TOTAL RESPONDED 100% (70) view details

12. SCIENCE/HISTORYHistory 23.6% (25)Political Science/Government 17% (18)Physics 8.5% (9)Oceanography/Marine Science 23.6% (25)Science 19.8% (21)Forensic Science 30.2% (32)Biological Science 25.5% (27)Archeology/Anthropology 12.3% (13)TOTAL RESPONDED 100% (106) view details

13. COMMUNICATIONSEnglish/Writer 35% (28)Journalism 38.8% (31)Public Relations 32.5% (26)Event Planning 37.5% (30)Broadcast Journalism (Radio/TV/Web) 25% (20)TOTAL RESPONDED 100% (80) view details

14. Write careers below that you are interested in that are NOT listed aboveTotal responses: 60 (22%) view details

15. FILM/TVActor 53.9% (41)Video Editor 30.3% (23)Producer/Director 50% (38)Screenwriter 32.9% (25)Multimedia Productions 22.4% (17)TOTAL RESPONDED 100% (76) view details

16. CONSTRUCTIONBuilder/Contractor 67.9% (19)Electrician 14.3% (4)Heating/Air Conditioning 14.3% (4)Plumbing 0% (0)Welding 14.3% (4)TOTAL RESPONDED 100% (28) view details













TOTAL RESPONDED 100% (28) view details





12/10/14, 1:16 PMSurvey Responses



Senior Career Conference Survey Summary Report (2015 - 2015)


In-progress: 5 Completed: 79 Not Started: 93 1. After high school, I plan to attend:

a four year college 87.3% (69)a two year college first, then transfer into a four year 10.1% (8)a two year college 0% (0)a trade school 0% (0)the military 1.3% (1)a Bible College 1.3% (1)Missionary Field 0% (0)TOTAL RESPONDED 100% (79) view details

2. The Senior Career Conference was fun and informative!Definitely 57% (45)Somewhat 34.2% (27)It was just "OK" 8.9% (7)Didn't learn anything 2.5% (2)TOTAL RESPONDED 100% (79) view details

3. I'm glad I attended today's Career Conference:Yes 94.9% (75)No 5.1% (4)TOTAL RESPONDED 100% (79) view details

4. Was there a major of your interest represented today?Yes 88.6% (70)No 11.4% (9)TOTAL RESPONDED 100% (79) view details

5. Today was helpful because:it provided a different perspective on the career/major I'm interested in 40.5% (32)I learned more about the career I'm interested in 54.4% (43)I learned I might want to change my major based on informationshared 19% (15)

Today was not that helpful 6.3% (5)

TOTAL RESPONDED 100% (79) viewdetails

6. I gained one new perspective or learned at least one new thing per the career(s) I'm interested in:Yes 96.2% (76)No 3.8% (3)TOTAL RESPONDED 100% (79) view details

7. As of today, how prepared do you feel toward the college application process?Very prepared 26.6% (21)Somewhat prepared... struggling to find time 43% (34)Just started my applications 20.3% (16)Not that prepared, haven't started applying yet 16.5% (13)Confused 1.3% (1)TOTAL RESPONDED 100% (79) view details

8. Regarding college, career and/or your future, what topics do you currently desire more information on from your collegeadvisor:Total responses: 44 (52%) view details

9. I understand the Career Conference is now over and I have to check out at the attendance table outside Herald Hall... like,right now!! ;)Yes 98.7% (76)No 1.3% (1)TOTAL RESPONDED 100% (77) view details




























Whittier Christian High School Strategic Research

Delivered by: Paul Neal & David Urban

Parent Survey ReportMay 2013

Importance in selecting which schools to consider

3

Total (n=258)

Mean Top 2 Bottom 2

Academics 4.73 96.90% 0.40%

Reputation 4.67 94.60% 0.40%

Biblical Focus 4.68 93.80% 0.80%

Financial 4.12 79.10% 6.20%

Campus 3.94 76.00% 4.70%

Recommendatio

4.05 74.40% 5.40%

Technology 3.89 72.90% 7.80%

Location 3.79 70.90% 11.20%

Friends 3.68 62.80% 12.40%

Athletics 3.41 52.30% 20.20%

Total (n=258)

Percentage

Biblical focus 64.80% Academics 55.60% Reputation 27.20% 11.50% Financial 10.30% Location 9.20% Friends 4.60% Athletics 4.20% Campus 2.30% Technology 0.80%

Top factors used to decide where child will attend

How important was it that the school your child attends be a Christian school?

4

Total (n=258)

Mean Top 2 Bottom 2

Rating 4.61 91.5% 3.1%

Total (n=258)Percentage

Family/Friends 50.0% Other (please specify) 17.4% Alumni 12.4% Representative visited your school 7.8% Online Research 4.3% Whittier Christian School website 2.7% School fair 2.3% Social Networking 1.9% Church 0.8%

How were you first introduced to WCHS?

How many schools did you apply to for your child(ren)?

5

Total (n=258)

Percentage

Average 1.25

1 76.7%

2 18.6%

3 3.1%

4 1.6%

Total (n=258)

Mean Top 3 Bottom 3

Rating 8.57 81.7% 6.4%

On a scale of 1 to 10, how likely is it that you would recommend our school to a friend or a colleague?

On a scale of 1 to 10, what is your overall satisfaction level with our school? (10 is high)

6

Total (n=258)

Mean Top 3 Bottom 3

Rating 8.45 83.8% 3.6%

Importance vs. Performance

7

Quality fine arts programSignificant financial aid is available

Quality athleticsResults of standardized tests

Parent involvement with schoolUse of technology in instruction

Individual student differences are accommodatedSchool's use of resources

Staff is customer service orientedStudents feel accepted by their peers

Financial stability of schoolFacility allows for adequate learning environment

High academic standards for studentsCollege advising

Educational objectives are clearDiscipline enforced consistently

Challenging educational curriculumIndividual attention provided for students

Communication with you/parentsChristian environment

Safe learning environmentChristian character development

Teachers are Christian role modelsTeachers exhibit care and concern for students

Students are well-prepared for the next educational levelQualified/competent teachers

3.70 4.03 4.35 4.68 5.00

4.034.344.224.364.304.504.264.074.074.313.964.204.414.414.334.304.034.194.093.953.934.044.103.973.854.06

4.944.86

4.834.814.804.80

4.784.77

4.734.714.704.70

4.684.664.65

4.544.52

4.494.42

4.364.27

4.244.23

3.913.89

3.83

ImportancePerformance

Student Survey ReportMay 2013

On a scale of 1 to 10, what is your overall satisfaction level with our school?

9

Recommend (n=122)

Less likely Recommend

(n=70)

Total (n=192)

Mean Top 3 Bottom 3 Mean Top 3 Bottom 3 Mean Top 3 Bottom 3

Rating 8.71 93.4% 0.8% 6.43 31.4%

7.1% 7.9 70.8% 3.1%

On a scale of 1 to 10, how likely is it that you would recommend our school to a friend?

Recommend (n=138)

Less likely to recommend

(n=70)

Total (n=216)

Mean Top 3 Bottom 3 Mean Top 3 Bottom 3 Mean Top 3 Bottom 3

Rating 9.01 100.0% 0.0% 5.54 0.0% 9.0% 7.6 63.9% 3.2%

Use of technology in instruction

Quality fine arts program

Discipline enforced consistently

Communication with you/parents

Quality athletics

Results of standardized tests

Staff is customer service oriented

Individual student differences are accommodated

Challenging educational curriculum

Christian environment

High academic standards for students

Students feel accepted by their peers

Christian character development Average

Educational objectives are clear

Facility allows for adequate learning environment

Individual attention provided for students

Safe learning environment

Teachers are Christian role models

College advising

Teachers exhibit care and concern for students

Students are well-prepared for the next educational level

Qualified/competent teachers

3.40 3.75 4.10 4.45 4.80

3.774.094.044.154.154.413.773.953.863.873.684.053.924.033.624.043.773.903.983.743.803.80

4.744.71

4.684.65

4.604.59

4.564.55

4.534.52

4.484.45

4.364.35

4.244.19

4.134.06

4.044.04

3.833.69

ImportancePerformance

Importance vs. Performance

10

Employee Satisfaction Survey ReportJuly 2013

How meaningful is your work?

12

Able to Contribute

(n=40)

Less Able to Contribute

(n=29)

Total (n=68)

Percentage Percentage Percentage Extremely meaningful 65.0% 55.2% 60.9% Very meaningful 30.0% 37.9% 33.3% Moderately 5.0% 6.9% 5.8% Slightly meaningful -- -- -- Not at all meaningful -- -- --

Mean 4.60 4.48 4.55

*Where 5 is “extremely meaningful” and 1 is “not at all meaningful”

How challenging is your job?

13

Able to Contribute

(n=40)


(n=29)

Total (n=68)

Percentage Percentage Percentage Extremely 12.5% 27.6% 18.8% Very challenging 60.0% 31.0% 47.8% Moderately 25.0% 37.9% 30.4% Slightly challenging 2.5% 3.4% 2.9% Not at all challenging -- -- --

Mean 3.83 3.83 3.83

*Where 5 is “extremely challenging” and 1 is “not at all challenging”

In a typical week, how often do you feel stressed at work?

14

Able to Contribute

(n=40)


(n=29)

Total (n=68)

Percentage Percentage Percentage Extremely often 2.5% 3.4% 2.9% Very often 32.5% 31.0% 31.9% Moderately often 37.5% 41.4% 39.1% Slightly often 22.5% 17.2% 20.3% Not at all often 5.0% 6.9% 5.8%

Mean 3.05 3.07 3.06

*Where 5 is “extremely often” and 1 is “not at all often”

How much are you able to contribute and have your ideas considered by your supervisor?

15

Able to Contribute

(n=40)


(n=29)

Total (n=68)

Percentage Percentage Percentage A great deal 40.0% -- 23.2% A lot 60.0% -- 34.8% A moderate -- 51.7% 21.7% A little -- 37.9% 15.9% None at all -- 10.3% 4.3%

Mean 4.40 2.41 3.57

*Where 5 is “a great deal” and 1 is “none at all”

16

How realistic are the expectations of your supervisor?

Able to Contribute

(n=40)


(n=29)

Total (n=68)

Percentage Percentage Percentage Extremely realistic 12.5% 3.4% 8.7% Very realistic 60.0% 20.7% 43.5% Moderately 22.5% 51.7% 34.8% Slightly realistic 5.0% 20.7% 11.6% Not at all realistic -- 3.4% 1.4%

Mean 3.80 3.00 3.46

*Where 5 is “extremely realistic” and 1 is “not at all realistic”

How often do you feel supported by the administration?

17

Able to Contribute

(n=40)


(n=29)

Total (n=68)

Percentage Percentage Percentage Extremely often 35.0% 3.4% 21.7% Very often 42.5% 24.1% 34.8% Moderately often 15.0% 48.3% 29.0% Slightly often 7.5% 17.2% 11.6% Not at all often -- 6.9% 2.9%

Mean 4.05 3.00 3.61

*Where 5 is “extremely often” and 1 is “not at all often”

How much opportunity do you feel you have for professional growth in your current role?

18

Able to Contribute

(n=40)


(n=29)

Total (n=68)

Percentage Percentage Percentage A great deal 20.0% 13.8% 17.4% A lot 45.0% 17.2% 33.3% A moderate 22.5% 41.4% 30.4% A little 12.5% 24.1% 17.4% None at all -- 3.4% 1.4%

Mean 3.73 3.14 3.48

*Where 5 is “a great deal” and 1 is “none at all”

Are you supervised too much at work, supervised too little, or supervised about the right amount?

19

Able to Contribute

(n=40)


(n=29)

Total (n=68)

Percentage Percentage Percentage

Much too much -- -- -- Somewhat too much 2.5% 3.4% 2.9% Slightly too much -- 17.2% 7.2% About the right 85.0% 48.3% 69.6% Slightly too little 10.0% 10.3% 10.1% Somewhat too little 2.5% 17.2% 8.7% Much too little -- 3.4% 1.4%

Mean 3.90 3.69 3.81

* Where 7 is “Much too much” and 1 is “Much too little”

Are you satisfied with your job, neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with it, or dissatisfied with it?

20

Able to Contribute

(n=40)


(n=29)

Total (n=68)


Extremely satisfied 40.0% 24.1% 33.3% Moderately satisfied 47.5% 65.5% 55.1% Slightly satisfied 2.5% 6.9% 4.3% Neither satisfied nor 2.5% 3.4% 2.9% Slightly dissatisfied 5.0% -- 2.9% Moderately dissatisfied 2.5% -- 1.4% Extremely dissatisfied -- -- --

Mean 6.08 6.10 6.09

*Where 7 is “extremely satisfied” and 1 is "extremely dissatisfied”

I am cared for as an employee by the WCHS Administration? (on a 7-point scale where 7 is

strongly agree and 1 is strongly disagree)

21

Able to Contribute

(n=40)


(n=29)

Total (n=68)


7 - Strongly Agree 57.5% 6.9% 36.2% 6 32.5% 34.5% 33.3% 5 5.0% 37.9% 18.8% 4- Neutral 2.5% 10.3% 5.8% 3 -- 3.4% 1.4% 2 2.5% 6.9% 4.3% 1 – Strongly disagree -- -- --

Mean 6.38 5.10 5.84

I am communicated with by the WCHS Administration? (on a 7-point scale where 7 is

strongly agree and 1 is strongly disagree)

22

Able to Contribute

(n=40)


(n=29)

Total (n=68)


7 - Strongly Agree 22.5% -- 13.0% 6 52.5% 13.8% 36.2% 5 17.5% 34.5% 24.6% 4- Neutral 2.5% 20.7% 10.1% 3 2.5% 17.2% 8.7% 2 2.5% 10.3% 5.8% 1 -Strongly Disagree -- 3.4% 1.4%

Mean 5.83 4.14 5.12

How proud are you of Whittier Christian High School?

23

Able to Contribute

(n=40)


(n=29)

Total (n=68)

Percentage Percentage Percentage Extremely proud 60.0% 27.6% 46.4% Very proud 27.5% 41.4% 33.3% Moderately 10.0% 27.6% 17.4% Slightly proud 2.5% 3.4% 2.9% Not at all proud -- -- --

Mean 4.45 3.93 4.23

*Where 5 is “extremely proud” and 1 is “not at all proud”

How well is Whittier Christian High School doing communicating its mission and vision to you? (on a

7-point scale where 7 is very well and 1 is not well at all)

24

Able to Contribute

(n=40)


(n=29)

Total (n=68)


Very well 27.5% 6.9% 18.8% 6 55.0% 24.1% 42.0% 5 12.5% 24.1% 17.4% 4 -- 31.0% 13.0% 3 5.0% 6.9% 5.8% 2 -- -- -- Not well at all -- 6.9% 2.9%

Mean 6.00 4.66 5.43

How well is Whittier Christian High School doing fulfilling its mission and vision? (on a 7-point scale

where 7 is very well and 1 is not well at all)

25

Able to Contribute

(n=40)


(n=29)

Total (n=68)


Very well 15.0% -- 8.7% 6 47.5% 24.1% 37.7% 5 32.5% 34.5% 33.3% 4 5.0% 31.0% 15.9% 3 -- 3.4% 1.4% 2 -- 3.4% 1.4% Not well at all -- 3.4% 1.4%

Mean 5.73 4.62 5.26

How likely are you to look for another job outside the school in the next two years?

26

Able to Contribute

(n=40)


(n=29)

Total (n=68)

Percentage Percentage Percentage Extremely likely 2.5% -- 1.4% Very likely 2.5% 3.4% 2.9% Moderately likely 10.0% 20.7% 14.5% Slightly likely 32.5% 37.9% 34.8% Not at all likely 52.5% 37.9% 46.4%

Mean 1.70 1.90 1.78

*Where 5 is “extremely likely” and 1 is “not at all likely”

How well do you feel that the administration of Whittier Christian High School works together as a

team?

27

Able to Contribute

(n=40)


(n=29)

Total (n=68)

Percentage Percentage Percentage Very well 35.0% -- 20.3% Well 50.0% 41.4% 46.4% Somewhat 12.5% 41.4% 24.6% Not very well 2.5% 17.2% 8.7% Not well at all -- -- --

Mean 4.18 3.24 3.78

*Where 5 is “very well” and 1 is “not well at all”

If the administration of Whittier Christian High School could improve in one area, what area would

that be?

28

Total (n=47)Percentage

Communication 51.1% Structure 48.9% Support/encouragement/care 31.9% Resources 19.1% Accountability 14.9% standards/expectations 14.9% Follow-through/preparation 14.9% Autonomy 6.4% Academic Standards 6.4% Training 2.1% Facilities/campus 2.1% Security 2.1%

General Population ReportAugust 2013

Group A = Explored other options for their children

Group B = Have not explored other options for their children

What one word best describes the school(s) your child(ren) currently attends? – Middle School

30

Group A (n=45)

Group B (n=33)

Total (n=78)


Good/Great/Excellent 46.7% 27.3% 38.5% Average/Fine/None 33.3% 42.4% 37.2% Caring/Friendly/Warm 11.1% 9.1% 10.3% Academic/Rigorous 4.4% 15.2% 9.0% Negative Terms – Dirty/Rough/ 2.2% 3.0% 2.6% Strict/Rigid 2.2% -- 1.3% New -- 3.0% 1.3% Christian -- 0.0% 1.3% Big -- 3.0% 1.3% Expensive 2.2% -- 1.3% Technology 2.2% -- 1.3%

* Multiple responses possible

What one word best describes the school(s) your child(ren) currently attends? – High School

31

Group A (n=47)

Group B (n=37)

Total (n=84)


Good/Great/Excellent 21.3% 21.6% 21.4% Average/Fine/None 42.6% 43.2% 42.9% Caring/Friendly/Warm 8.5% 8.1% 8.3% Academic/Rigorous 10.6% 21.6% 15.5% Negative Terms – Dirty/Rough/Overcrowded

14.9% 10.8% 13.1% New 2.1% -- 1.2% Christian 2.1% -- 1.2% Expensive 4.3% -- 2.4% Traditional -- 2.7% 1.2% Sports 2.1% -- 1.2%


On a 5-point scale, where 1 is “not at all” and 5 is “completely,” to what extent does your child(ren)’s school have the following characteristic/attribute?

Middle School Group A (n=47)

Group B (n=37)

Total (n=84)

Rating Rating Rating

Academically-My student is well prepared for next stage of education

Mean 3.90 3.98 3.93

Top 2 69.4% 80.0% 74.2%

Bottom 2 10.2% 5.0% 7.9%

Socially-My student is involved with appropriate social activities

Mean 3.88 3.82 3.85

Top 2 70.8% 71.8% 71.3%

Bottom 2 10.4% 12.8% 11.5%

Spiritually-My student is growing spiritually

Mean 3.53 3.68 3.60

Top 2 57.4% 60.0% 58.6%

Bottom 2 19.1% 12.5% 16.1%


On a 5-point scale, where 1 is “not at all” and 5 is “completely,” to what extent does your child(ren)’s school have the following characteristic/attribute?


High School Group A (n=46)

Group B (n=46)

Total (n=92)

Rating Rating Rating


Mean 3.65 4.11 3.88

Top 2 65.2% 80.4% 72.8%

Bottom 2 19.6% 2.2% 10.9%


Mean 3.70 3.93 3.81

Top 2 67.4% 72.7% 70.0%

Bottom 2 21.7% 6.8% 14.4%


Mean 3.20 3.62 3.41

Top 2 43.5% 57.8% 50.5%

Bottom 2 32.6% 20.0% 26.4%

On a 5-point scale, where 1 is “not at all important” and 5 is “extremely important,” how important is this characteristic/attribute to your

satisfaction with your child(ren)’s school?

34

Middle School Group A (n=47)

Group B (n=39)

Total (n=86)

Performance Gap

Rating Rating Rating Performance - Importance


Mean 4.17 4.31 4.23

-0.30Top 2 78.7% 82.1% 80.2%

Bottom 2 12.8% 2.6% 8.1%


Mean 4.20 4.18 4.19

-0.34Top 2 84.8% 78.9% 82.1%

Bottom 2 6.5% 2.6% 4.8%


Mean 4.00 3.89 3.95

-0.35Top 2 75.0% 68.4% 72.1%

Bottom 2 14.6% 10.5% 12.8%

On a 5-point scale, where 1 is “not at all important” and 5 is “extremely important,” how important is this characteristic/attribute to your

satisfaction with your child(ren)’s school?

35

High School Group A (n=45)

Group B (n=45)

Total (n=90)

Performance Gap

Rating Rating Rating Performance - Importance


Mean 3.98 4.04 4.01

-0.13Top 2 66.7% 71.1% 68.9%

Bottom 2 15.6% 8.9% 12.2%


Mean 3.80 3.80 3.80

+0.01Top 2 67.4% 65.2% 66.3%

Bottom 2 19.6% 13.0% 16.3%


Mean 3.76 3.95 3.85

-0.44Top 2 62.2% 68.2% 65.2%

Bottom 2 17.8% 9.1% 13.5%

36

Importance Performance - Middle

Performance - High

(n=141) (n=90) (n=86)

Academic 4.68 4.09 3.22 Drama 3.04 3.30 2.72 Music 3.49 3.55 3.07 Athletics 3.68 3.61 3.13 Remedial support services 3.71 3.59 2.96 Enrichment Programs for 4.17 3.72 3.14 Opportunity for early 4.33 3.37 3.05 Location 4.30 3.99 3.30 Facilities 4.19 3.96 3.06 Cafeteria 3.61 3.74 2.73 Provided Transportation 3.10 3.34 2.63 Spiritual training 3.16 3.11 2.58 Cost 3.94 4.01 3.03 Technology 4.35 3.92 3.31 Safety 4.70 4.14 3.25

Feature Importance vs. Performance

37

Importance Performance Gap - Middle

Performance Gap - High

(n=141) (n=90) (n=86)

Safety 4.70 -0.56 -1.45 Academic 4.68 -0.59 -1.46 Technology 4.35 -0.43 -1.04 Opportunity for early 4.33 -0.96 -1.28 Location 4.30 -0.31 -1.00 Facilities 4.19 -0.23 -1.13 Enrichment Programs for 4.17 -0.45 -1.03 Cost 3.94 0.07 -0.91 Remedial support services 3.71 -0.12 -0.75 Athletics 3.68 -0.07 -0.55 Cafeteria 3.61 0.13 -0.88 Music 3.49 0.06 -0.42 Spiritual training 3.16 -0.05 -0.58 Provided Transportation 3.10 0.24 -0.47 Drama 3.04 0.26 -0.32

Feature Performance Gap

Feature Importance vs. Performance

38

Safety

Technology

Cost

Spiritual training

Provided Transportation

Cafeteria

Facilities

Location

Opportunity for early college credit

Enrichment Programs for Advanced Students

Remedial support services

Athletics

Music

Drama

Academic

0 1.25 2.5 3.75 5

4.09

3.3

3.55

3.61

3.59

3.72

3.37

3.99

3.96

3.74

3.34

3.11

4.01

3.92

4.14

4.68

3.04

3.49

3.68

3.71

4.17

4.33

4.3

4.19

3.61

3.1

3.16

3.94

4.35

4.7

3.22

2.72

3.07

3.13

2.96

3.14

3.05

3.3

3.06

2.73

2.63

2.58

3.03

3.31

3.25

High SchoolImportanceMiddle School

How favorable are you towards a Christian education?Group A (n=74)

Group B (n=67)

Total (n=141)

Mean 3.81 2.88 3.37

Top 2 67.6% 40.3% 54.6%

Bottom 2 16.2% 40.3% 27.7%

39

Have you considered other options for your child?Total

(n=141)Percent

Yes 52.5%

No 47.5%

Have you ever heard of WCHS? How well? Favorable?Heard of Group A Group B Total

Yes 47.3% 32.8% 40.4%

No 52.7% 67.2% 59.6%

40

How well Group A Group B Total

Mean 3.37 2.86 3.18

Top 2 45.7% 31.8% 40.4%

Bottom 2 17.1% 31.8% 22.8%

Favorability Group A Group B Total

Mean 4.34 4.09 4.25

Top 2 71.4% 54.5% 64.9%

Bottom 2 5.7% 13.6% 8.8%

41

What word or phase comes to mind when you think of Whittier Christian High School?

On a 5-point scale, where 1 is a “poor” reputation and 5 is an “excellent” reputation, what is Whittier

Christian High School’s reputation?

Group A (n=35)

Group B (n=22)

Total (n=57)

Mean 3.77 3.59 3.70

Top 2 65.7% 59.1% 63.2%

Bottom 2 2.9% 13.6% 7.0%

42

Based on this profile, how appealing is this school to you? Please rate on a 5-point scale where 1 is

“not at all” and 5 is “completely.”

Group A (n=74)

Group B (n=67)

Total (n=141)

Mean 3.92 3.54 3.74

Top 2 77.0% 61.2% 69.5%

Bottom 2 13.5% 16.4% 14.9%

43

How likely would you be to consider Whittier Christian High School based off of this profile where 1

is “not at all likely” and 5 is “extremely likely”?

Group A (n=74)

Group B (n=67)

Total (n=141)

Mean 3.57 2.93 3.26

Top 2 62.2% 43.3% 53.2%

Bottom 2 24.3% 41.8% 32.6%

44

Recommendations

45

• Identify further where the gaps in teacher quality are within WCHS. It appears there may be bigger gaps in quality in Science and Math—based on open ended comments and observations made during our visit on campus

• Based on the comments on teacher quality, the planned implementation of student evaluation has added importance. This will be important to communicate the value you will place on assessment throughout the organization as well as give you added material form which to make assessments.

• Communicate what is being done about improvements on both teacher training as well curriculum enhancements.

• Work with faculty towards setting up the opportunities for students to meet with them one on one or after school and throughout the day.

• Communicate findings of research and the importance of teachers showing care and concern for all students.

• Provide additional training on caring for students to faculty and staff--respondents reported inconsistency.

• Continue to drive school culture and acceptance among all students. • Communicate and monitor student discipline and share the process within

the school.

Recommendations

46

• Communicate the quality of new teachers that are being hired and the excitement of them being part of WCHS to parents and students. Share their background of experience and training.

• Communicate the vision and implementation of college advising program. (We have seen it in writing in the admissions packet-how has it been communicated to current students and parents?)

• Internally, have student and parent testimonials about how your staff has helped them identify and get admitted to colleges.

• Communicate 4-year plan for college placement for current students and promote internally.

• Celebrate college acceptances of your graduates within the school as well as for outside audiences.

• Promote great colleges your students are getting admitted to to both current students and parents. For example, on the website it mentions 99% go to college and the quality schools. This should be on the school profile that gets sent to colleges.

Recommendations

47

• Highlight placement rates of colleges, SAT scores as well as AP success rate in comparison to state averages. (We recommend comparing those to local school districts, private schools and Christian schools in the area. Highlight to students and parents where appropriate.)

• Monitor AP test scores by class to highlight weaknesses and strategize around improving the pass percentage. For example, if English is a strength, there must be some classes that are pulling the average pass rate down to 65%.

• Provide added opportunities for faculty to serve as mentors and Christian role models.

• Profile faculty and their ministry involvement within the school as well as in the community. Are there faculty doing missions work in the summer than could be highlighted?

• Highlight the ways you communicate with families and students and the improvements that have been made already.

48

Parents—The most important improvements that would help you rate closer to a 10?

All (n=224)

Percentage

Teachers (not experience, educated, unwilling to help students, non-Christian attitude, unmotivated) 22.6%

Academics (testing, curriculum, addition of subjects- cooking, woodwork, etc.) 21.0%

Spiritual Emphasis (Add hands on ministry, lack of teachers with passion for Christ) 17.7%

Discipline 17.7%Athletics (Coaches- no Christian values- communication, favoritism) 14.5%

Teacher communication (edline) 11.3%Other (class size, students, scheduling, special needs aid, demographic target, parent involvement) 11.3%

Facilities (security, parking lot) 6.5%Cost 6.5%Improve student-teacher relationship 6.5%

49

Parents—What suggestions for improvement do you have for our school?

All (n=224

)Percentage

Teachers (review)/staff (unfriendly) 17.0% Academics/add to curriculum/ AP concern 11.6% Parent - Teacher communication (Especially Ed-line) 11.6% None 10.3% Other (books, student mentors, uniforms, schedule, post high school transition, fundraising, parent newsletters, parent involvement) 7.1%

Spiritual Climate 6.3% Discipline (dress code, PDA, drugs, etc.) 6.3% Athletics (Coaches, uniforms) 5.4% Cost (Summer school, financial aid) 4.5% Facilities (old, security issues) 3.6% Extracurricular (Retreats, dances, associated fees, SAT/ACT classes) 3.1% Parent/School/staff communication 3.1% Technology 3.1%

50

Students—What are the most important improvements that would help you rate us closer to a 10?

All (n=147)

Percentage

Academics (not challenging enough, need more classes, unorganized, Bible class)

29.9%

Teachers 16.3%

Lunch program (too expensive, quality, length) 14.3%

School spirit 12.2%

Environment (community, people, safety, spiritual emphasis) 11.6%

Athletics (coaches, favoritism, recruitment) 8.2%Extracurricular 6.8%Discipline (rules; not enough; too strict) 6.1%Facilities (sports, Class, AC, etc.) 5.4%School organization/scheduling 5.4%Student events 5.4%Cost (tuition, extracurricular fees) 4.1%Chapel 4.1%

51

Students—What suggestions for improvement do you have for our school?

All (n=192)

Percentage

Academics (balance equivalent class workload, More AP, textbooks, tutoring)

14.1%

Teachers (unmotivated, relationship with students, not effective) 12.5%Lunch Program 10.4%Athletics (Sports Facilities, coaches that mirror Christian lifestyle and 7.3%Facilities (air conditioning, parking lot) 7.3%Planned student events (field trips, dances, retreats) 6.8%School Spirit 6.3%Chapels / spiritual emphasis 5.7%Academics (less challenging/less homework) 5.2%Bible class/curriculum 5.2%Arts Program/ extracurricular 5.2%Technology 3.6%More student involvement 3.6%Tuition/ extra fees/ scholarships 3.1%

Whittier Christian High School Summary Research Report

2013 & 2014 Comparative

Delivered by: Paul Neal & David Urban

FACULTY—Satisfaction scores compared

2

2013 (n=68)

2014 (n=62)

Mean MeanHow meaningful is your work? 4.55 4.42How challenging is your job? 3.83 3.81 How often do you feel stressed at work 3.06 3.05Are you able to contribute and have ideas considered 3.57 3.32Realistic expectations of supervisor 3.46 3.58Supported by the administration 3.61 3.45Opportunity for professional growth 3.48 3.31Amount of supervision is too little, right, too much 3.81 3.97Satisfied? 6.09 5.9Cared for as an employee? 5.84 5.34Communicated with? 5.12 4.98How proud are you of WCHS? 4.23 4.06How well is WCHS communicating its mission? 5.43 5.56How well is WCHS fulfilling its mission 5.26 5.21How likely are you to look for another job in the next 2 years? 1.78 2.29How well does the administration work together as a team? 3.78 3.55

*Where 5 is “extremely meaningful” and 1 is “not at all meaningful”

STUDENTS—On a scale of 1 to 10, how likely is it that you would recommend our school to a friend or a colleague? And what is your overall satisfaction with our school? (10 is high)

3

2013 (n=192)

2014 (n=157)

Mean Top 3 Bottom 3 Mean Top 3 Bottom 3

Likelihood to recommend

7.90 70.8% 3.1% 7.75 59.3% 4.5%

Overall satisfaction 7.55 63.9% 3.2% 7.71 65.1% 3.7%

4

STUDENTS—Importance and Performance Gap 2013 2014Importance Gap Importance Gap

Students feel accepted by their peers 4.48 -0.80 4.34 -0.86↑Qualified/competent teachers 4.74 -0.97 4.75 -0.72↓Individual student differences are accommodated 4.24 -0.62 4.27 -0.71↑College advising 4.65 -0.50 4.54 -0.68↑Students are well-prepared for the next educational level 4.71 -0.63 4.70 -0.67↑Educational objectives are clear 4.53 -0.68 4.39 -0.64↓Individual attention provided for students 4.56 -0.79 4.51 -0.59↓Christian environment 4.36 -0.44 4.29 -0.54↑

Christian character development 4.52 -0.65 4.34 -0.42↓

Teachers exhibit care and concern for students 4.68 -0.63 4.54 -0.42↓Facility allows for adequate learning environment 4.55 -0.61 4.49 -0.34↓High academic standards for students 4.45 -0.40 4.43 -0.26↓Results of standardized tests 4.13 -0.36 4.14 -0.26↓Staff is customer service oriented 4.19 -0.15 4.29 -0.26↑Discipline enforced consistently 4.04 -0.30 4.03 -0.21↓Safe learning environment 4.59 -0.18 4.52 -0.19

Teachers are Christian role models 4.60 -0.45 4.36 -0.19↓Challenging educational curriculum 4.35 -0.32 4.37 -0.12↓Communication with you 4.04 -0.06 4.03 -0.11↑Quality fine arts program 3.83 -0.02 3.81 -0.08↑Quality athletics 4.06 -0.15 3.99 0.01↓Use of technology in instruction 3.69 0.11 3.69 0.12

5

Use of technology in instruction

Quality athletics

Quality fine arts program

Communication with you/parents

Challenging educational curriculum

Teachers are Christian role models

Safe learning environment

Discipline enforced consistently

Staff is customer service oriented

Results of standardized tests

High academic standards for students

Facility allows for adequate learning environment

Teachers exhibit care and concern for students

Christian character development

Christian environment

Individual attention provided for students

Educational objectives are clear

Students are well-prepared for the next educational level

College advising

Individual student differences are accommodated

Qualified/competent teachers

Students feel accepted by their peers

3.50 3.83 4.15 4.48 4.80

4.344.754.274.544.704.394.514.294.344.544.494.434.144.294.034.524.364.374.033.813.993.69

4.484.74

4.244.65

4.714.534.56

4.364.52

4.684.55

4.454.13

4.194.04

4.594.60

4.354.04

3.834.06

3.69

2013 2014 STUDENTS—Importance Chart

PARENTS—How important were the following factors in selecting which schools to consider? (on a 5-point scale where 1 is “not at

all important” and 5 is “very important”)

6

2013 (n=258)

2014 (n=205)


Academics 4.73 96.9% 0.4% 4.74 97.6% 1.0%

Reputation 4.67 94.6% 0.4% 4.62 94.1% 1.0%

Biblical focus 4.68 93.8% 0.8% 4.6 94.1% 3.4%

Financial 4.12 79.1% 6.2% 4.11 79.8% 4.9%

Campus 3.94 76.0% 4.7% 3.97 76.6% 4.9%

Recommendation 4.05 74.4% 5.4% 4.07 75.5% 3.4%

Technology 3.89 72.9% 7.8% 4.01 77.8% 3.0%

Location 3.79 70.9% 11.2% 3.81 65.4% 9.3%

Friends 3.68 62.8% 12.4% 3.75 62.9% 9.3%

Athletics 3.41 52.3% 20.2% 3.42 51.7% 19.0%

PARENTS—Please select the top 2 factors you used to decide where your child(ren) will attend?

7

2013 (n=258)

2014 (n=205)

Percentage Percentage

Financial 64.8% 17.1%Reputation 55.6% 29.8%Academics 27.2% 55.6%Biblical focus 11.5% 59.5%Recommendation 10.3% 8.8%Location 9.2% 7.3%Athletics 4.6% 5.9%Campus 4.2% 2.4%Friends 2.3% 4.9%Technology 0.8% 1.5%Other (Please specify) 9.6% 7.3%

PARENTS—How important was it that the school your child attends be a Christian school? (on a 5-point scale where 1 is

“not at all important” and 5 is “very important”)

8

2013 (n=258)

2014 (n=205)


Rating 4.61 91.5% 3.1% 4.48 87.8% 4.9%

9

PARENTS—How were you first introduced to Whittier Christian High School? (Choose one)

2013 (n=258)

2014 (n=205)

Percentage Percentage

Family/Friends 50.0% 43.4% Alumni 12.4% 16.6%

Representative visited your school 7.8% 7.8%

Online Research 4.3% 3.9%

Whittier Christian School website 2.7% 2.9%

School fair 2.3% 5.9% Social Networking 1.9% 1.0% Church 0.8% 1.0% I received a mailing, but I had not specifically requested it. 0.4% --

TV/Radio -- -- Other (please specify) 17.4% 17.6%

PARENTS—On a scale of 1 to 10, how likely is it that you would recommend our school to a friend/colleague? (10 is high)

10

2013 (n=258)

2014 (n=197)


Rating 8.57 81.7% 6.4% 8.81 85.3% 2.0%

PARENTS—On a scale of 1 to 10, what is your overall satisfaction level with our school? (10 is high)

2013 (n=258)

2014 (n=169)


Rating 8.45 83.8% 3.6% 8.69 88.2% 1.8%

11

PARENTS—Importance and Performance Gap 2013 2014Importance Gap Importance Gap

Qualified/competent teachers 4.94 -0.91 4.93 -0.79↓Communication with you/parents 4.77 -0.7 4.88 -0.67↓Individual attention provided for students 4.73 -0.66 4.86 -0.66

Discipline enforced consistently 4.7 -0.74 4.6 -0.43↓Teachers exhibit care and concern for students 4.83 -0.61 4.87 -0.43↓Educational objectives are clear 4.70 -0.5 4.73 -0.42↓Students are well-prepared for the next educational level 4.86 -0.52 4.88 -0.41↓Challenging educational curriculum 4.71 -0.39 4.73 -0.39

College advising 4.68 -0.27 4.74 -0.38↑High academic standards for students 4.66 -0.25 4.8 -0.34↑Christian character development 4.80 -0.5 4.79 -0.32↓Christian environment 4.78 -0.51 4.76 -0.32↓Individual student differences are accommodated 4.37 -0.42 4.41 -0.29↓Students feel accepted by their peers 4.52 -0.49 4.6 -0.29↓Staff is customer service oriented 4.49 -0.29 4.54 -0.27↓Facility allows for adequate learning environment 4.65 -0.32 4.72 -0.24↓Teachers are Christian role models 4.81 -0.46 4.77 -0.23↓Financial stability of school 4.54 -0.24 4.62 -0.22↓Use of technology in instruction 4.27 -0.34 4.38 -0.2↓Parent involvement with school 4.24 -0.21 4.3 -0.19↓School's use of resources 4.42 -0.33 4.44 -0.16↓Safe learning environment 4.80 -0.3 4.91 -0.09↓Results of standardized tests 4.23 -0.13 4.28 -0.04↓Significant financial aid is available 3.89 -0.04 3.89 0.03

Quality fine arts program 3.83 0.23 3.97 0.13

Quality athletics 3.91 0.07 4.01 0.15

12

Quality athleticsQuality fine arts program

Significant financial aid is available Results of standardized tests

Safe learning environment School's use of resources

Parent involvement with school Use of technology in instruction

Financial stability of schoolTeachers are Christian role models

Facility allows for adequate learning environmentStaff is customer service oriented

Students feel accepted by their peers Individual student differences are accommodated

Christian environmentChristian character development

High academic standards for studentsCollege advising

Challenging educational curriculum Students are well-prepared for the next educational level

Educational objectives are clearTeachers exhibit care and concern for students

Discipline enforced consistentlyIndividual attention provided for students

Communication with you/parents Qualified/competent teachers

3.7 4.03 4.35 4.68 5

4.934.884.864.64.874.734.884.734.744.84.794.764.414.64.544.724.774.624.384.34.444.914.283.893.974.01

4.944.77

4.734.7

4.834.7

4.864.71

4.684.66

4.84.78

4.374.52

4.494.65

4.814.54

4.274.24

4.424.8

4.233.89

3.833.91

2013 2014 PARENTS—Importance Chart

HERALD HUB HERALD HUBGROUP

NO. TOUR STOPS ROOM NO.GROUP

NO. TOUR STOPS ROOM NO.1 Equipping the Mind 10 1 Equipping the Mind 10

This is your chance to meet our Dept. Heads and learn a little about what is in store for your student.

This is your chance to meet our Dept. Heads and learn a little about what is in store for your student.

2 Directed Studies 34 2 Directed Studies 34

Some students need a little extra. See what the WCHS Directed Studies program can do for your student.

Some students need a little extra. See what the WCHS Directed Studies program can do for your student.

3 Coffee with Carl 20 3 Coffee with Carl 20

Meet our Head of School, Carl Martinez, up close and personal.

Meet our Head of School, Carl Martinez, up close and personal.

4 All About Advising 15 4 All About Advising 15

Although you're just beginning, our Advisement Office will walk with you every step of the way.

Although you're just beginning, our Advisement Office will walk with you every step of the way.

5 Equipping the Spirit 6 5 Equipping the Spirit 6

Opportunities to grow in Christ are plentiful on the WCHS campus. See what makes us unique.

Opportunities to grow in Christ are plentiful on the WCHS campus. See what makes us unique.

6 Technology on Campus 19 6 Technology on Campus 19

Find out why we are excited for the future of technology in education at WCHS

Find out why we are excited for the future of technology in education at WCHS

7 Go Heralds Athletics 21 7 Go Heralds Athletics 21

On the court or on the field, the Heralds compete to win and bring God glory.

On the court or on the field, the Heralds compete to win and bring God glory.

8 Fabulous Fine Arts 14 8 Fabulous Fine Arts 14

Hear from our Fine Arts Department about the many ways God's beauty is expressed through the arts at WCHS

Hear from our Fine Arts Department about the many ways God's beauty is expressed through the arts at WCHS

WELCOME DAY 2014

8:45 - 9:00 CHECK IN Person Responsible: SHANNON • Welcome tunnel (ASB/Student Councils) • New students pick up schedules at tables near HH

o Senior Student Council man tables o Also get name tags (with group number)

NOTES/NEEDS/TO DO’S: ✓ Contact Student Council Advisors to have student councils at Welcome Day ✓ Assign areas for each Student Council team at registration

o At least four tables placed around the big quad to keep lines moving ✓ Prepare name tags for students with group numbers on them

o Peel and stick? o How many groups?

9:00 - 10:00 WELCOME ASSEMBLY Person Responsible: JOY o Parents and students in Herald Hall o Agenda

o Welcome (Emcee) – Scot Burbank o History/Overview – Carl o Announcements – Debbie Tweedy, Holly Peery, ?? o Presentation – Joy o Close – Scot Burbank

▪ Dismiss parents and students ▪ Instructions on next steps

NOTES/NEEDS/TO DO’S: ✓ Advise Maintenance need to set up for 300 (done 8/5) ✓ Meet with assembly speakers to prep, determine tech needs, etc. (done 8/5) ✓ Assign tech responsibilities (Scot B. set up)

10:00 - 11:30 STUDENT ACTIVIITES Person Responsible: SHANNON o California Life

NEEDS/TO DO’S: ✓ Material/Set up needs for activities

10:00 – 11:30 PARENT ACTIVITIES Person Responsible: CHRIS S., JOY o Herald Hub Tours

o 8 minute overview at each stop; 5 minutes between stops o Questions answered by tour leaders between tour stops

o Herald Hub Tour Stops o Stop 1: Teacher Time (Dept. Heads/Faculty)

• Academic Levels • CSF and NHS

o Stop 2: Coffee with Carl (Carl Martinez, Head of School) o Stop 3: All about Advising (Joel Nunnally)

• Naviance/Family Connection • Schedule changes

o Stop 4: Directed Studies (Diane Barcroft) • What is it? How does it work? Who benefits? Testing? • DS Study Hall

o Stop 5: Technology at WCHS (James Walker, Chris Sanita) • Schoology • Download MDM • Tech Questions

o Stop 6: Spiritual Life (Chris Duran) • Chapel • Christian Service

NOTES/NEEDS/TO DO’S: ✓ Contact Herald Hub participants ✓ Contact Tour Leaders - Joy ✓ Create tour maps - Joy ✓ Chris S. will contact teachers for Hub locations

11:30 - 12:00 LUNCH Person Responsible: CARL & JOY • Lunch 2 You

o Choice from 2 entrees and side salad o Water and cookies from CostCo (ask Debra or Judy)

• Table hosts – WCHS Teacher volunteers o Interact with parents/students

• Ambiance o Chapel Band

NOTES/NEEDS/TO DO’S: ✓ Table set up in the shade ✓ Follow up with Table Hosts

ACTION ITEMS AND PERSON RESPONSIBLEACTION ITEM PERSON RESPONSIBLE

Check In:

Contact Student Council Advisors to have student councils at Welcome Day

o Assign areas for each Student Council team o Contact Maintenance re tables/chairs & set up

Shannon

Prepare name tags for students Joy

Gather materials for Check In o WC Stickers (Chris S.) o Schedules (Bob)

Joy, Chris S., Bob

Welcome Assembly:

Meet with assembly speakers to prep, determine tech needs, etc.

Chris D.

Maintenance Request o Set up 300 chairs in Herald Hall o Set up tables in quad

Joy

Student Activities:

Gather materials needed Shannon

Talk to students/adults needed Shannon

Purchase prizes if needed Shannon

Parent Activities:

Identify & notify faculty for Teacher Time Chris S.

Identify & notify others for Hub activities o Fine Arts – Jon Genberg o Directed Studies – Diane Barcroft o Advising – Joel Nunnally o Coffee with Carl – Carl Martinez o Edline – Lynn Weber and Chris Sanita

Joy

Contact Tour Leaders Joy

Prepare map with tour directions Joy

Lunch & Ambiance:

Determine needs Chris D.

Follow up with table hosts Joy

Maintenance Request: Tables needed Chris D.

Carl Martinez


La Habra, CA

June 18, 2012

Parent Satisfaction and Referral Survey

Version 3.0

Final Report

Parent Satisfaction and Referral Survey

Version 3.0

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Overview of the Parent Satisfaction and

Referral Survey, Version 2.0 3

Crosstabs 22

Understanding Crosstabs 23

Crosstabs Legend 27

Crosstabs Report 29

Student Crosstabs 37

Subgroups 38

Understanding Subgroups 39

Subgroups Report 41

Leverage 42

Understanding Leverage 43

Leverage Report 45

Satisfaction Quadrants 57

Understanding the Satisfaction Quadrants 58

Quadrant Report 59

Differentials 61

Understanding the Differential Report 62

Differentials in Difference Order 63

Differentials in Importance Order 65

Differentials in Effectiveness Order 67

Close Correlates 69

Understanding Close Correlates 70

Close Correlate Tables 71

Appendices 75

What Do I Do Now? 76

Word of Mouth Calendar 79

Understanding Promoters, Passives,

Detractors 96

GraceWorks Ministries Parent Satisfaction and Referral Survey (Ver. 3.0), © 2011-12

Overview

An overview of the Parent Satisfaction and Referral Survey, Version 3.0. This is the same summary you

may have received before ordering the survey.

3


GraceWorks’ Parent Satisfaction and Referral

Survey Version 3.0: At a Glance GraceWorks’ Parent Satisfaction and Referral survey (PSRS) is the only annual survey your Christian school will need. Based on research with nearly 400 Christian schools and over 70,000 Christian school constituents, the PSRS provides all of the following: (1) Normed data – Percentile ranks for satisfaction and willingness to refer for:

Your school as a whole AND all relevant demographics:

Age Educational attainment Race Grade of child Gender Relationship to school Income Distance from school (2) Comparisons within Subgroups – discovering statistically significant differences in satisfaction and willingness to refer within each demographic above (e.g. Baby Boomers vs. Generation X.) (3) Lists of Promoters, Detractors, Passives, (4) Lists of volunteers willing to help you with marketing tasks, (5) Ample testimonial material, (6) Leads from Promoters of other families to recruit, (7) Explanation of Detractor and Passive problems, in respondents own words, (8) Suggestions for improvement from all respondents, (9) Re-enrollment status for next school year with other schools considered, and why. (10) Overall evaluation and comments of students (optional).

(11) Quality Gaps: Importance and effectiveness comparison of the 40 program elements most related to satisfaction and willingness to refer. (12) Thrill me / Disgust me / Annoy me / Frill me program element tables for your school as a whole. (13) Close correlates of each programmatic element – understanding which elements relate to other elements, in the minds of your parents. (14) Effect size ratings and statistical significance tests for all demographics and program elements. (15) Leverage ratings to prioritize what program improvements are most likely to increase satisfaction and willingness to refer. (16) Percentile ranks of program elements effectiveness – If any program element is problematic, understand how you rate in that item compared to other Christian schools. (17) Detailed explanation of what to do next, including a month-by-month calendar of word of mouth activities. PSRS 3.0 takes 15 – 20 minutes to complete through a simple online process. From start to finish, the PSRS process takes about 6 weeks from engagement to report. PSRS 3.0 is the foundational diagnostic tool required for all GraceWorks’ coaching clients, as well as seminar recipients. Our best creative thinking over five years went into the development of this survey. Confidentiality Note: GraceWorks does not track names or any other identifying information from respondents. Individual schools track who received each “token” (identifying number). Respondents can choose to remain anonymous (with the common-sense exception of token numbers for respondents who volunteered ) via a final question, in which case token numbers are not reported back.

4


Overall Rationale: PSRS 3.0 The Parent Satisfaction and Referral Survey (Version 3.0) helps you fulfill two mandates: The Biblical Mandate – God calls all of us to excellence (Ecclesiastes 9:10, Colossians 3:23-24). PSRS 3.0 provides you a valuable opportunity to “see yourself as others see you.” The Practical Mandate – Between 60-70% of all new families to a Christian school come from word of mouth (WOM) referral. WOM leads are both easiest to close (enroll) and, importantly, least price sensitive. In fact, GraceWorks’ research clearly shows that Promoters (individuals who make referrals to your school) are: More likely to volunteer, Also less price sensitive, More apt to otherwise participate, and More likely to donate … all in multiples of 300% or more. There are two basic methods to increase word of mouth referrals:

(1) Encourage Promoters to make more referrals, and (2) Improve program quality, in the right areas, to create more

Promoters – and Promoter enthusiasm. The PSRS (3.0) helps you accomplish both. Encouraging Promoters to Make More Referrals

The first practical step is to identify who makes referrals to your school. A pivotal question is Fred Reichheld’s “Ultimate Question,” from his excellent 2006 book on the same:

On a scale of 0 to 10, with 10 being high, how likely are you to refer a friend or colleague to our school?

Through four decades of customer satisfaction research, Reichheld found that 90% of WOM to any enterprise comes from individuals who respond to this question with a “9” or “10”. Once Promoters are known, you can work with them via our proven WOM strategies, detailed in a month-by-month calendar. The goal is to increase the number of referrals made (e.g. using Promoter receptions), and increase the quality of the referral. (e.g. “Don’t just tell the new family, tell us about the new family.”) Improve Overall Program Quality

From the point of view of satisfaction and willingness to refer, not all program improvements are equal in effectiveness. A key goal of the Parent Satisfaction and Referral Survey is to help you understand what program improvements are most likely to increase overall satisfaction. This is done through the differentials, the Thrill me / Disgust me / Annoy me / Frill me tables, and through the Leverage analysis. As part of our “8 Habits of Highly Satisfying Christian Schools” research, we have confirmed the educational literature’s tenet that teacher-related items explain 40-45% of parents (and often, other constituents) view of satisfaction with a Christian school. In a large multi-school denominational study in 2010, “Teachers work well with parents” turned out to be the highest leverage item of 40 items tested, with another three (“Engaging teaching,” Academically Competent teachers,” “Teachers exhibit care and concern for students) in the top ten. (n = 750.) In a Christian school, the leadership challenge is to determine what program improvements are the highest priority. While ultimately overall vision and God’s purpose trump all other considerations, it is quite helpful to know what program improvements are most likely to increase parental satisfaction, and thereby increase parental (and other constituent) word of mouth referrals. It is important to note that overall parental satisfaction is highly correlated (.70+) with willingness to refer. We find very few and very small program quality gaps in schools with satisfaction in the 80th

5


percentile and above, typically averaging, for all program elements, no more than ¼ of one point on a 5 point scale. (Quality gap is defined as the average of all responses on all importance ratings less the average of all responses on all effectiveness ratings.) In fact, in highly satisfying schools, we typically find no more than a handful of individual program elements with a quality gap of .50 or above. (Thus, .50+ quality gaps are a good “rule of thumb” for defining a “problem.”) This finding confirms Peter Drucker’s view that organizational excellence is consistent program quality across all program elements. The PSRS’s identification of “Disgust me” items is particularly helpful in this regard. To determine Thrill me / Disgust me / Annoy me / Frill me program elements, GraceWorks uses a sophisticated formula which considers both the relative importance and effectiveness of each program element in standard deviation units, which we call the “zDif” score. On the other hand, average quality gaps for all program elements in schools with low satisfaction ratings can average above one point on a five point scale. Even here, the challenge is the same; to present Administrators the highest payoff, the highest leverage, program elements improvements – those improvements which are most likely to improve constituent satisfaction and willingness to refer. To better understand problematic program elements, PSRS 3.0 includes both “close correlates” and percentile ranks of program element effectiveness. At the time of this writing (December 2011), comparison data for the program effectiveness items is based on results from about 60 Christian schools. We expect well over 100 by the end of the 2011-2012 school year. The Importance of Qualitative Data

“There are lies, damn lies, and there are statistics.” Mark Twain In working closely with several hundred Christian schools, we have learned that Mark Twain’s view of statistics is alive and well, particularly among teachers. Although we have spent countless hours getting the statistics of the PSRS right, for many people, there is simply no substitute for qualitative data.

For that reason, the longest section of the PSRS report continues to be the qualitative comments of all respondents. In addition to asking all respondents for suggestions for improvement, we also ask the follow-up questions (to the referral question) suggested by Fred Reichheld:

Promoters

What are the reasons you rated us so highly?

Passives What could we do for you to rate us closer to 10?

Detractors

What problem are you having (or did you have) with our school, and how can we fix it?

The answers to these questions are sorted by both satisfaction / willingness to refer, and by subgroup. This gives our clients an organized way to gather more detail for subgroups that are above or below average, adding important “color” to “black and white” statistics. In our hands-on experience, this “color” is often vital to “selling” the need for change to school teachers and other staff. Mobilizing Marketing Volunteers

Administrators and Principals are consistently surprised by the number and skills of volunteers who offer to help market the school. It is certainly true that volunteers do not volunteer because “they are not asked.” Our survey research shows, over and over again, that they are not asked because they are not known. In other words, the same 20% keep doing all the work because we know them well enough to ask them. With the PSRS, we are able to ask every (adult) survey respondent. This gives you a much broader pool of potential volunteers, along with a good understanding of how they want to help.

6


Understanding Priorities for Improvement

One of the biggest frustrations of the average Administrator is the plethora of program elements that could – or should – be improved, and knowing the relative priority of each. While constituent satisfaction cannot be the only consideration for determining the priority of program improvements, it is closely correlated with willingness to refer, willingness to volunteer, and willingness to donate. The PSRS provides concrete, specific help in determining priorities for improvement. In the PSRS, this is accomplished in five powerful ways:

(1) Leverage – a listing of program elements according to their relative correlation on satisfaction and willingness to refer. This tells you, at a glance, which program improvements will improve satisfaction and willingness to refer the most.

(2) Differentials – the average importance and effectiveness of all

program elements. GraceWorks defines quality gaps as the difference between the two.

(3) Thrill me / Frill me / Disgust me / Annoy me – from the perspective of word of mouth and willingness to refer, understanding which program elements Thrill / Frill / Disgust, and Annoy your constituents. This is reported to you school as a whole, and for every statistically significant subgroup over 30 with moderate to high effect size differences in satisfaction and willingness to refer.

(4) Percentile ranks of all program elements – which compare

your effectiveness scores for items such as “engaging teaching” with effectiveness scores of other Christian schools. The result of the comparison is reported as a percentile rank.

Close Correlates – Typically effectiveness ratings of key items are “clustered” in the minds of your parents. Close correlates give you a

solid idea of what clusters need attention, such as overall teacher effectiveness, leadership, communication, academics, and the like. Predict the Satisfaction Impact of Large Expenditures

Since 2007, GraceWorks’ PSRS has helped schools understand the relative satisfaction boasts that can be expected by large expenditures, such as adding a gym, or a foreign language. This is done by “cross-tabbing” satisfaction and willingness to refer of individuals who would benefit by the new expenditure, and comparing their satisfaction to individuals who would not. Crassly (but in plain English), you could ask parents:

Is your child a jock? With the answer to that simple question, we now know who the parents of jocks are, and parents of “non-jocks.” Thinking about that from a satisfaction point of view, if the new gym really mattered, we would expect parents of jocks to be less satisfied than parents of non-jocks. If that difference is large (determined with effect sizes) and statistically significant (determined with two different F-tests), then it is a good bet that adding a gym will significantly increase satisfaction (which would result in more referrals, more donations, and more volunteering.) There are two important caveats here. (1) It is NOT a given at all that parents of jocks will be less satisfied. We have seen it both ways. If satisfaction between jock and non-jock parents is roughly equal, the lack of a new gym is not significantly depressing parental satisfaction and willingness to refer your school. (If you build a new gym, they may NOT come.) (2) Why this ultimately matters is that our research clearly shows that a host of other program elements (teachers, Christian character development) are typically far more important in determining parental satisfaction. In other words, before spending big money on a new building, or a brand new program, it would be wise to see if the absence of that building, or that program, is dissatisfying to the parents and students who care about it the most.

7


In fact, many other aspects of your program can be evaluated the same way. An optional PSRS question is “Strengths of your child,” where we ask parents what academic subjects at which their children excel. If parents of children good at math are much less satisfied, it is possible the math program or curriculum is not strong enough. Non-curricular aspects of your program can be tested the same way (e.g. how satisfied are parents whose children are good at music, or evangelism?) The Bottom Line

Between 60% and 70% of new parent families come from word of mouth referral. GraceWorks’ Parent Satisfaction and Referral Survey provides you solid guidance on how to increase overall satisfaction and word of mouth referrals. It is the foundational survey for all GraceWorks’ clients. Thus, the PSRS Can Help You Answer Questions Like These:

� Who are our Promoters, Detractors, and Passives?

� What is the satisfaction/willingness to refer of parents at various grade levels? (What could we do to avoid losing parents after grade ___? What are the concerns of parents in our middle school?)

� How effectively are we meeting the needs of Generation X compared to Baby Boomers?

� How can we more effectively reach Hispanics? (African-American? Asians?)

� By studying the responses of our affluent parents, what can we learn about attracting more affluent people to our school?

� How could we reach our immediate neighborhood better?

� What is the relative satisfaction of our staff compared to our

parents? (Current parents to past parents? Church members to parents?)

� What program elements are the highest priority to improve?

� What program elements are most satisfying?

� What program elements are most disgusting?

� What program elements do not help satisfaction one way or another?

� What are the WOM messages Promoters and Detractors are likely to say?

� What do students themselves say about the school?

� In helping market the school, who is:

…Willing to represent the school at their church?

… Help with all the writing chores?

… Distribute marketing materials around town?

… Lead marketing events (e.g. Promoter’s receptions)?

… Do the work for marketing events?

… Help with online marketing?

… Do graphic art?

… Serve on a Speaker’s bureau?

… Serve on a marketing taskforce?

� What improvements are likely to increase the number of Promoters?

� Who are our Detractors, and how can we fix their problem?

� What are our largest quality gaps for the school as a whole, and key subgroups?

8


� What other schools are parents considering, and why?

� What is the re-enrollment status of all responding parents?

� In parents’ minds, how does our school compare to other schools parents are considering?

� What are the key concerns of the various racial groups that attend our school?

� How can we reach higher income families more effectively?

� If we build a new gym, is it likely to increase overall satisfaction, and willingness to refer, of current parents?

� What are the suggestions for improvement of all respondents, as well as for each subgroup?

� What program element effectiveness scores most closely relate to each other?

� What program elements are highly effective compared to effectiveness scores of the same element in Christian schools throughout North America?

9


Understanding the PSRS: Crosstabs

Cross Tabs Net Referral Score 33 47

Closing Date: 6/25/2010 Total Responses 750 Net Referral Score Net Satisfacton Score

Question

Ave Imp

Leverage Answer Referral ANOVA Percentile Effect Satisfaction ANOVA Percentile Effect Responses % Resp Promoters Passives Detractors Advocates Apathetics Assassins

Survey as a whole Example Christian School33 23% 47 13% 750 100% 423 154 173 486 133 131

Gender Male 41 N (.565) 69% 0.02 52 N (.433) 94% 0.23 387 52% 213 119 55 267 54 66

Gender Female 28 N (.290) 59% -0.01 71 N (.300) 59% -0.11 363 48% 199 67 97 284 51 28

Relationship to SchoolCurrent Parent or

Guardian 36 Y (.009) 12% 0.05 49 N (.067) 11% 0.03 590 79% 341 121 128 385 109 96

Relationship to School Past Parent 11 Y (.018) 3% -0.55 32 N (.248) 7% -0.13 74 10% 32 18 24 44 10 20

Relationship to School School board 42 N (.338) 17% 0.06 48 N (.751) 9% -0.01 168 22% 104 30 34 107 35 26

Relationship to SchoolMember of Sponsoring

Church 56 Y (.000) 32% 0.26 62 Y (.000) 36% 0.21 209 28% 146 35 28 152 35 22

Relationship to School Teacher or Other Staff 49 Y (.003) 31% 0.20 55 N (.061) 21% 0.11 173 23% 113 31 29 120 29 24

Relationship to School Alumni 57 Y (.000) 54% 0.34 65 Y (.016) 42% 0.22 94 13% 65 18 11 70 15 9

Relationship to School Current Student 53 N (.114) 50% 0.28 67 N (.291) 45% 0.17 30 4% 20 6 4 23 4 3

Relationship to SchoolVolunteer - Leader

(besides School Board) 100 Y (.004) 67% 0.76 100 Y (.015) 63% 0.65 14 2% 14 0 0 14 0 0

Relationship to School Volunteer - Other 81 Y (.000) 64% 0.50 81 Y (.000) 57% 0.42 85 11% 73 8 4 74 6 5

Relationship to School Grandparent 42 Y(.002) 45% -0.28 33 Y(.045) 33% -0.37 43 6% 25 11 7 25 7 11

Relationship to School Donor 50 Y (.018) 23% 0.55 66 Y(.037) 48% 0.47 212 28% 137 45 30 161 30 21

Household Income $25,000 to $34,999 73 N (.305) 47% 0.18 77 N (.112) 45% 0.07 22 4% 17 4 1 18 3 1

Household Income $35,000 to $49,999 77 Y (.000) 57% 0.61 88 N (.059) 63% 0.55 26 4% 21 4 1 23 3 0

Household Income $50,000 to $74,999 47 Y (.047) 26% -0.29 56 Y (.013) 60% -0.26 139 24% 90 25 24 93 31 15

Household Income $75,000 to $99,999 65 N (.325) 46% 0.27 58 N(.654) 51% 0.31 155 26% 115 25 15 106 33 16

Household Income $100,000 to $149,999 53 N (.419) 35% -0.08 61 Y (.010) 33% -0.11 122 21% 81 25 16 90 17 15

Household Income $150,000 to $199,999 38 Y(.002) 32% -0.45 34 Y(.032) 29% -0.57 61 10% 32 20 9 31 20 10

Household Income $200,000+ 33 Y (.003) 28% -0.66 44 Y(.015) 23% -0.77 55 9% 31 11 13 32 15 8

Household Income No Answer 60 70 10 2% 7 2 1 7 3 0Totals: Household

Income 590 100%

Child's Grade Preschool 83 N (.855) 54% 0.33 87 N (.409) 51% 0.19 46 6% 38 8 0 41 4 1

Child's Grade Kindergarten 79 N (.563) 45% 0.29 81 N (.944) 38% 0.25 43 6% 34 9 0 37 4 2

Child's Grade 1st 59 N (.340) 30% 0.19 63 N (.909) 28% 0.15 41 5% 30 5 6 31 5 5

Child's Grade 2nd 55 N (.447) 25% 0.09 68 Y (.038) 27% 0.14 47 6% 31 11 5 35 9 3

Child's Grade 3rd 59 N (.138) 18% 0.02 61 N (.389) 82% 0.01 44 6% 32 6 6 32 7 5

Child's Grade 4th 57 Y (.002) 10% -0.21 55 Y (.009) 7% -0.25 56 7% 41 6 9 39 9 8

Child's Grade 5th 45 N (.253) 5% 0.29 47 N (.085) 33% 0.35 53 7% 33 11 9 35 8 10

Child's Grade 6th 41 N (.119) 11% 0.21 46 Y (.034) 82% 0.19 41 5% 24 10 7 26 8 7


Child's Grade 8th 26 Y (.015) 8% -0.25 36 Y (.009) 15% -0.30 47 6% 22 15 10 26 12 9

Child's Grade 9th 34 Y(.049) 20% -0.19 44 N(.102) 18% -0.25 32 4% 18 7 7 20 6 6

Child's Grade 10th 42 N(.344) 21% -0.03 45 N(.409) 17% -0.01 31 4% 19 6 6 19 7 5

Child's Grade 11th 45 N(.581) 17% 0.07 52 N(.289) 24% 0.13 29 4% 18 6 5 19 6 4

Child's Grade 12th 27 Y (.035) 12% -0.39 35 Y(.041) 19% -0.35 37 5% 18 11 8 20 10 7Totals: Children's

Grades 590

Example Christian School

Net Referral Score

Willingness to refer in one number

Overall satisfaction in one

number

Red indicates statistical significance

Effect size for each subgroup

Broken down group by group

Percentile rankings for each group

Raw Numbers for all groups

Two separate databases for willingness to refer and satisfaction

Certain questions tested for parents alone (income / education)

Sub-totals with corresponding percents for questions not asked of all

Follows census

categories where possible

All other demographic questions and other custom questions are cross-tabbed the same way

10


Understanding the PSRS: Crosstabs, cont.

By cross-tabbing satisfaction scores with effectiveness ratings, we are able to determine which program elements impact satisfaction the most.

Final variables are being determined with factor analysis

Clients are allowed to change some factors at

n/c

This is the leverage score, which indicates the relative impact on

satisfaction and willingness to

refer

Effectiveness scale is 1 to 5, with 5 being highly effective

Importance ratings are

included as well (1 to 5, 5 is high)

Effect sizes here can be quite dramatic and

telling

11


Understanding the PSRS: Leverage Score

The Leverage scoring introduced in PSRS 2.0 has been substantially improved in 3.0. Instead of reporting the score itself, PSRS 3.0 adds several other scores for each program element, including:

(1) The difference (quality gap) scores,

(2) Quadrant ranking (Thrill / Frill / Disgust / Annoy),

(3) Percentile rank of effectiveness score for each item

(4) Average importance rating, and

(5) Average effectiveness rating.

With this report, it is easier than ever to determine what program elements need work. (In the example above, all the “Disgust me” items need immediate improvement, because of their high leverage scores.)

Leverage is a 1000-point scale which indicates what program elements are most impacting satisfaction and willingness to refer. (1000 is high, 0 is low, and the impact can be positive or negative. For the school above, “Engaging teaching” is a high leverage item that is negatively impacting satisfaction, while “Christian environment” is positively impacting satisfaction and willingness to refer. (The low percentile rankings of this school, even for “Thrill me” items, indicates highly discerning parents here.)

The leverage score itself is based on five different elements:

(1) Relative importance of the item,

(2) Difference in satisfaction and willingness to refer with respondents’ effectiveness rating for the program item,

(3) Effect sizes (on satisfaction and willingness to refer) of high or low effectiveness ratings for this program element,

(4) Consistency of effectiveness ratings and satisfaction scores for that item, and

(5) The overall range of respondents rating the program element from highly effective to poorly done.

The purpose of the leverage rating is to understand which program element improvements are likely to increase satisfaction and willingness to refer the most.

In the case of the school above, items 1, 2, 4, 6, and 9 are the most pressing items for improvement (out of over 40 tested.) These program elements have high leverage scores, and relatively large quality gaps.

Note that in the Advanced PSRS, you can add your program elements, which will be all scored as the above, with the exception of percentile ranks (because no comparison data will exist.)

12


Understanding PSRS 3.0: Differentials

Differentials were previously only available in our Differential Diagnostic reports. We are now making them a standard part of our Parent Satisfaction and Referral Survey. These are often the most teacher-friendly statistics.

Differentials report the average importance and effective for each item. The difference between the 2 (DIF) is the quality gap. zDif reports the quality gap in standard deviation units.

13


Understanding the PSRS 3.0: Thrill Me / Disgust Me / Annoy

Me / Frill Me

Based on our Differential Diagnostic work, we have developed very precise rules, over several years of experience, to determine what factors Delight or Disgust your constituents.

New in PSRS 3.0, your final report includes the leverage score and the difference (quality gap) score. This is also a relatively easy chart for teachers to understand, although the findings can sometime be tough to take.

A real school is reported here. The “Disgust Me” list on the left would be far more important to “fix” than the “Disgust Me” list on the right. That is determined by the three-digit leverage score (where 1000 is high). Based on the report alone, we would not view facilities renovation as a high priority compared to the left-most items, again because of the significantly lower leverage score. (Note, the decimal number is the quality gap score, which is the difference of average importance and average effectiveness for each item. The scale is 1 to 5, with five being high.)

Program elements are assigned based on their relative importance and quality gap scores. Note that no “Annoy me” or “Disgust me” element can have a quality gap score less than .50. Likewise, no

program element can be a “Thrill me” or “Frill me” if the quality gap score is greater than .50. Based on these rules, not all program elements can be accurately

placed on this chart. Essentially, some elements are “average” items that do not stand out one way or another.

In the advanced survey, your program elements are scored with the standard elements, and many will end up on this chart. (Note that sometimes the statistics do, in fact, lie. The first two items on the Frill me list here are more than Frills. The first is close to being a problem. The second is a reason parents choose the school. This is why GraceWorks’ President, Dan Krause, interprets each survey in an hour-

long phone appointment.)

14


Close Correlates

New in PSRS 3.0 is standard close correlate analysis. This recognizes the reality that parents often “lump” program effectiveness ratings in constellations. The final report includes the top 10 items that are highly correlated (based on Pearson correlation, .60 or above), and the Excel final report includes a tab with ALL close correlates (.60 or above). Using the example above, here are the problem effectiveness ratings most related to the program element of “Engaging Teaching” in the minds of parents:

Note that GraceWorks’ Differential Diagnostic report includes full factor and regression analysis – while the PSRS 3.0 does not. Typically, we when go to the trouble to impute data, and then factor and regression analyze it, our surveys determine over 60% of satisfaction and willingness to refer for any given school – if response rate is adequate. From a “pure statistics” point of view, GraceWorks’ leverage score is similar to regression, and close-correlates gets at the problem of collinearity, that is, variables that mean about the same thing to parents and other evaluators.

15


Understanding PSRS 3.0: Qualitative Data

The qualitative section of the report is the longest, Because comments are reported by all the various subgroups.

Understanding the PSRS: Marketing Volunteers

Comments are reported back school as a whole, and for all

demographics

Satisfaction and Willingness to Refer scores given for each

respondent

Answers are color coded (Green for

Promoters, Yellow for Passives, Red for

Detractors

Suggestions for Improvement for all respondents in blue

Respondents who wish to

remain anonymous are marked CONFID

16


Excel-Based Final Report

The companion Excel report contains ten categories like this of volunteers who are willing to help with various marketing tasks. GraceWorks provides you a list of all Promoter tokens by the various categories, which takes about 1 minute to match with a special macro. Detractors and passives, completed and uncompleted, and volunteers are all matched with your names in this simple process. (Note that the school itself assigns tokens to names, generally one token per person, not family.)

Layout brochures / promotional material

Token Number Last Name First Name

1100201202

1101401202

1130001202

1152501202

1185701202

1208601202

1245501202

1417201202

1721501202

(Note, the token number is the mechanical “key” to the survey. Respondents go to www.gwmin.com/psrs and use the token number to take the survey. The survey itself takes about 20 minutes to complete. While your survey is active, GraceWorks sends you a weekly Excel progress report in the same format, so that you can determine who has and has not taken the survey. Even the progress report includes volunteers up to that time.)

Survey Complete Token Last First

1100201202

1101401202

1130001202

1138001202

Here are all the categories of marketing volunteers we request on the survey:

Distribute brochures to local churches / organizations Help with marketing events

Help with public relations – suggest or write stories / press releases Layout brochures / promotional materials

Organize marketing events (e.g. open houses) Represent the school at my church

Serve as a speaker about the school to community / church groups Serve on a short-term marketing taskforce

Make good news phone calls Work on the website

Write copy / promotional material (We add an additional question like this for our fund development clients, recruiting volunteers for the annual fund.) Principals are typically surprised by the number of volunteers which come from this question. Our conclusion is that part of the 80/20 problem is that the active 20 do not always know equally qualified volunteers in the 80 – who are not actively volunteering. Identifying these hidden volunteer gems is a subtle, yet powerful benefit of the PSRS. Understanding PSRS 3.0: Not Enrolling

If a parent is not planning to re-enroll, PSRS 3.0 asks why, and this is reported back in the Excel spreadsheet report (and is part of the Progress Report as well).

17


If all eligible children are not enrolled in the school, PSRS asks where they are enrolled, and how that school compares to your school. All this data is matched automatically against your name / token list.

Children Enrolled in Other Schools Token Last First Grade / School / Comment

1152501202 1st- Centerville Elementary School

1154601202

2nd- Centerville Elementary. Behavior of children at GCA much better but academics are not as comparable.

1537001202

K- Transferring - Compares Poorly - Annistown Elem.

1537001202

5th- Transferring - Compares Poorly - Annistown Elem.

Confid 7th-

If a parent is not re-enrolling, we ask the reasons why:

Not Re-Enrolling Child

Token Last First Reason:

1295201202

The English and science teachers and curriculum. I was skeptical last year and a little disappointed this year. I don't believe that the English teacher actually actively engages with the children's learning experience. In particular, grammar and literature

Confid

Confid It seem the staff interest is not there for the students.

This too, is matchable – except of course if the parent wished to remain anonymous. As a matter of mechanics, note that questions asked will vary based on the relationship of the respondent to the school. These questions would only be asked of parents.

Understanding the PSRS: Generating Leads

Only Promoters are asked: Who else do you know who would be blessed attending our school. These are reported to you by the person making the referral: name / address / phone number. That way, you can go back to the Promoter, ask them to contact the referral they made, to see if your secretary could call to make an appointment. This feature alone, which is also included in the weekly progress report, will typically pay for the cost of the survey. (To preserve confidentiality, an actual sample is not shown here.)

18


Understanding PSRS 3.0: Testimonials

Typically lacking in most Christian School websites and literature is testimonials. We ask Promoters: Why did you rate us so highly? Many of their responses can be transformed into a nice testimonial. Of course, you need to check with the respondent, but in general, using the PSRS, you will never lack for a testimonial again. These, too, are part of the weekly progress report, as well as the final Excel companion report, all immediately matchable. (A note about confidentiality: Token numbers of individuals who wish to remain confidential are not reported on the PSRS, with the common sense exceptions of anyone who volunteers. However, these are only reported on those specific tabs, NOT all tabs. The PDF report likewise has removed all token numbers of respondents who wish to remain anonymous.)

Testimonial Material

Token Last First Here is possible testimonial material …

1100201202 I think the school does a great job

1101401202 God's hand on GCA is clearly evident.

1104501202 small classroom size, family atmosphere, high academic standards

1130001202

The small classes, overall the students are really good kids and the different ages interact & get along well, I like the teachers and my kids, unlike myself at their ages, really enjoy school.

1138001202 Staff, academics, small classes, environment

1245501202 Godly teachers, good environment, Biblical integration, many extras are offered (sports, specials etc) and my kids are happy here.

1417201202

Example Christian School seems to be a well rounded environment with a Christian setting. The class sizes are smaller which allows the students to get the extra attention he/she needs. That's what I was looking for in a school. The teachers are loving an

1478301202 Godly staff, excellent curriculum, nice extracurricular activities, good motivators for students (such as SOM)

1480301202 Awesome Staff, excellent academics, and the school is grounded in Christ.

19


Understanding PSRS 3.0: Detractor Problems

Detractors are asked: What problems do you, or did you have with our school, and how can it (they) be fixed? If they are not confidential – a significant number will not be – these comments are reported back to you as part of the final Excel report, and the progress report. These individuals are literally inviting you to call and talk with them about their problem – and you should. (How many positive comments does it take to overcome one negative word of mouth comment?)

Detractors with Problem

Token Last First My significant problem with your school is …

1295201202

My child has had a lovely experience at GCA and I have been very pleased for what it has done for her spiritually. She has blossomed into a wonderful young lady. The teachers have been kind and wonderful. The previous years proved to be much more rewarding

1897101202 increased teacher/student/parent communication & get accredited

20


Final Thoughts on PSRS 3.0.

The Parent Satisfaction and Referral Survey, version 3.0 does give you all your data in the final Excel Report, except for the token numbers of individuals who wished to remain anonymous. In addition, a special subgroup report (not pictured here) compares the satisfaction levels of groups within a demographic, such as Boomers vs. Busters. Except for assessing teachers, the PSRS is designed to be the one quality survey you need annually. Best of all, because questions are asked (or not) in context, you can use the PSRS with all school constituencies, including:

Donors Board Members

Teachers Past Parents

Alumni Grandparents Volunteers

In fact, we strongly recommend that you do, in fact, survey all these groups, because Promoters and Volunteers are to found among all of them. Plus, GraceWorks has comparison data for all these groups. The President of GraceWorks Ministries, Dan Krause, personally reviews the PSRS with your school. Many of these are done on speaker phones, with boards or key executive staff, a one hour review. The PSRS is the foundational piece GraceWorks uses with all clients. You will be satisfied – or your money back.

21


Cross Tab Reports

Besides providing the response totals and percents for practically all closed-ended questions, the

Crosstab report provides the satisfaction and willingness to refer scores for these same answers, testing

for statistical significance for each group against the entire group.

22


Understanding Your Cross-Tab Report “I like pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals.” Winston Churchill The heart of the Parent Satisfaction and Referral Survey (PSRS) is two questions. The first is the so-called “ultimate question” of Harvard loyalty expert Fred Reichheld. His 2006 book, The Ultimate Question, is presently a Wall Street Journal Business best seller. Here’s the ultimate question: On a scale of 0 to 10, how likely are you to refer ___________ to a friend, or a colleague? Based on 30 years of extensive research in corporate America, Reichheld concluded that about 90% percent of word of mouth referral for an organization will come from people who answer this question with a 9 or 10. Reichheld has labeled these “Promoters.” For decades, Reichheld’s chief competitor, J.D. Power and Associates has been using an equally powerful question, which assesses satisfaction: On a scale of 0 to 10, overall, how satisfied are you with ________? Neither question is copyrighted, but we do ask the question exactly as they ask it, and we score it the same way as well.

Note that Reichheld’s scoring is stricter -- and we think more accurate -- than Power’s.

Reichheld Power Promoter

9,10 Advocate 8,9,10

Passive 7,8

Apathetic 5,6,7

Detractor

0-6, No answer Assassin

0-4, No answer Reichheld developed the Net Promoter Score, which is the percent of Promoters less the percent of Detractors. We use his methodology but use the registered term Net Referral Score. To our knowledge, Power does not have an equivalent concept for satisfaction, so we adopted Reichheld’s methodology with satisfaction scores: Net Satisfaction Score = % of Advocates less % of Detractors. That means that both the Net Referral Score and Net Satisfaction Score can range from +100 (where every respondent is a Promoter or Advocate) to -100 (where every respondent is a Detractor or Assassin). At this writing, the highest score of any Christian school is +90, and the lowest is -44. There is a significant amount of anecdotal evidence that Net Referral Scores correlate highly to enrollment success or failure. We will eventually quantify this

23


statistically as more schools use the PSRS. Of the two measures, we think the Net Referral Score is most predictive of future enrollment success. The Net Referral and Net Satisfaction questions are required questions on the Parent Satisfaction Score, which means that every respondent can be categorized as a Promoter, Passive, or Detractor, as well as an Advocate, Apathetic, or Assassin. By categorizing every respondent, we can calculate Net Referral and Net Satisfaction Scores for subgroups in your school, such as baby boomers, 3rd graders, teachers, or people who make more than $200,000 a year. Note that respondents were not required to respond to these demographic questions, so the total respondents will not add up to the grand total of respondents. In addition, the relationship question, while required, is non-exclusive. A current parent might be part of the board, or a teacher -- and are scored in both categories. The survey itself has a number of conditions. For example, we don’t ask past parents what grade their child is in. Nor do we ask students what their annual household income is (should we?) And so on. The purposes of the PSRS are intricately tied to questions of statistic significance and adequate response rates. The PSRS has three basic purposes:

(1) To understand the overall and specific satisfaction and willingness to refer of current parents and students. Recent past parents or alum could optionally be added to this list. (2) To identify Promoters throughout your school’s constituents, regardless of how they relate to your school. (3) To understand your parent’s concerns -- what these issues are, and how they think about them. This knowledge is invaluable in developing a detailed yearly parent quality survey -- arguably better than focus groups. This is different than the usual approach, which is to write Parent Quality Surveys based on administration / teacher views of concerns, and how they think about them. Within this framework, acceptable response rates vary by constituency. For example, it would be nice to know your overall donor satisfaction with your school, but they are already telling you by their giving. The main reason for donors to take the PSRS is to identify Promoters -- so that we can proactively work with them to increase their referral effectiveness. On the other hand, acceptable response rate for current parents is crucial -- 40%+ is the minimum response rate, and we prefer over 60%. We do need to know, reliably, what the overall satisfaction levels are. So, you need to push to encourage your current parents to respond. If the response of this report is not adequate, let’s leave it open and re-run this report after you have further promoted the survey. Response

24


rate for teachers and board likewise should be 90%+ -- there’s really no reason for less. The adequacy of your response rates will be reviewed as part of the consultation for this report. How to Read the Cross-Tab Report

Once you understand what’s behind the PSRS, reading the Cross-Tab Report should be fairly straight-forward. Your overall Net Referral Score and Net Satisfaction Scores are at the very top of the report in bold letters. These will be the same numbers as found in the “School as a Whole” score, typically at the top of your report. Important: If the Net Referral Scores for your Current Parents are significantly difference, you should use these instead of the “School as a Whole” number. We have seen significant disconnects between various constituencies for different schools … and these disconnects do matter. However, all things considered, what your current parents think matters the most. Reading from the left, the first two bolded columns are Net Referral and Net Satisfaction Scores respectively. This provides the Net Satisfaction and Referral Scores for the various subgroups in your school. About 90% of the time, we can see a problem in a given grade based on a significantly lower Net Referral Score … it’s uncanny.

You can see the various satisfaction scores for different categories of constituents who relate to the school. How well are you doing with Generation X, or long-time constituents, or the board? Are small differences between categories significant? Use the effect size scores to determine that. Whether positive or negative, the way to judge an effect score is: .20 - .39 – small effect size .40 - .59 – moderate effect size .60+ -- large effect size Therefore, pay attention to items with effect sizes greater than .40, or less than -.40. The columns to the immediate right of the Net Referral and Net Satisfaction Scores report the results of the F-test. “Yes” indicates that the differences in that category are statistically significant level (<.05), which means this result could have only happened by chance less than 5% of the time -- a stringent test. “No” means this difference could have happened by chance more than 5% of the time, and we tell you that percent (as a decimal). So a “No -- .39” means that there is a 39% percent chance that this differing result happened by chance. (At least according to the gods of statistics, who do in fact live in an alternate universe.) Another way to say that is there is a 61% chance that this result did not happen by chance. If the difference was negative, this would

25


certainly not be enough certainty to fire a teacher over -- but it indicates the need to investigate. The rest of the report is straight forward. Total responses give you the total respondents by category. The actual numbers of each type of Promoter, Advocate, etc. comprise the remaining columns. Two concluding thoughts on the Cross-Tab Report. First, the Promoters column represents real people who are willing to promote your school. That’s an amazing marketing force for you. Second, you should not assume that non-respondents will have an equal proportion of Promoters or Advocates. A far safer assumption is that at best non-responders are Passives or worse. All of which speaks to need to maximize Promoter response in every possible way. A Final Statistical Note. In all cases -- F-test, Spearman Rho, or Percentiles -- if the number is 9 or less, we do not test. These are either left blank, or labeled with an “N/A”.

26

Col # Label Explanation

Lowest

Possible

Score

High

Possible

Score

Col # Label Explanation

Lowest

Possible

Score

High

Possible

Score

1 QuestionShort version of the

questionN/A N/A 11 Effect Size

Effect size on willingness to

refer, being part of this

subgroup (or answering the

question this way).

(-4.00) (+4.00)

2IMP EFF

DIFF LEV

Importance, Effectiveness,

Difference, Leverage

Scores (Program

Elements only)

IMP, EFF,

LEV = 0,

DIFF =

(-5)

IMP / EFF /

DIFF = 5,

LEV =

1000

12 ResponsesTotal number of people

responding to this category0

Total number

of

respondents

3 Answer Answer to the question N/A N/A 13% of

respondents

Percent of respondents to

the whole, or for the total

number of respondents to

that question

0% 100%

4 ReferralNet Referral score for this

group-100 +100 14 Promoters

Persons answering the

referral question with a 9 or

10

0

Total number

of

respondents

5 Anova

Indicates statistical

significance with p score

(<.05 is significant)

.000 0.99 15 Passives


referral question with a 7 or

8

0

Total number

of

respondents

6 Percentile

Percentile rank of

willingness to refer for

this particular subgroup

0 99 16 DetractorsPersons answering the

referral question with 0 to 60

Total number

of

respondents

7 Effect Size

Effect size on willingness

to refer, being part of this

subgroup (or answering

the question this way).

(-4.00) (+4.00) 17 Advocates


satisfaction question with an

8, 9, or 10

0

Total number

of

respondents

8 SatisfactionNet Satisfaction Score for

this category(-100) +100 18 Apathetics


satisfaction question with an

5, 6, or 7

0

Total number

of

respondents

Table 1

Understanding the Cross Tab Report (PSRS 3.0)

GraceWorks Ministries Parent Satisfaction and Referral Survey (Ver. 3.0), © 2011-12 27

9 Anova

Indicates statistical

significance with p score

(<.05 is significant)

.000 0.99 19 Assassins


satisfaction question with a 0

to 4

0

Total number

of

respondents

10 Percentile

Percentile rank of

satisfaction for this

particular subgroup

0 99


Cross Tab Net Referral Score 47 Net Satisfacton Score 71

Closing Date: 6/15/2012Total

Responses152 Net Referral Score Net Satisfacton Score

Question Answer Referral ANOVA % Effect Satisfaction ANOVA % Effect Responses % Resp Promoters Passives Detractors Advocates Apathetics Assassins

School as a whole Whittier Christian High School47 38% 71 47% 152 100% 87 49 16 119 22 11

Gender Female 50 N (.628) 39% 0.03 70 N (.770) 38% 0.02 107 70% 64 32 11 83 16 8

Gender Male 46 N (.899) 43% -0.02 77 N (.954) 60% -0.01 39 26% 22 13 4 33 3 3

Relationship to School Current Parent or Guardian 48 Y (.028) 28% 0.03 72 Y (.007) 35% 0.03 147 97% 85 47 15 116 21 10

Relationship to School Past Parent 26 N (.083) 19% -0.36 63 N (.119) 45% -0.24 19 13% 9 6 4 14 3 2

Relationship to School School Board Member N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0%

Relationship to School Member of Sponsoring ChurchN/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0%

Relationship to School Teacher or Other Staff 67 N/A N/A 0.13 100 N/A N/A 0.04 3 2% 2 1 0 3 0 0

Relationship to School Alumnus 60 N (.637) N/A 0.10 70 N (.640) N/A 0.11 10 7% 6 4 0 7 3 0

Relationship to School Current Student N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0%

Relationship to SchoolVolunteer - Leader (besides

School Board) 67 N/A N/A 0.09 67 N/A N/A 0.04 3 2% 2 1 0 2 1 0

Relationship to School Volunteer - Other 56 N/A N/A 0.02 67 N/A N/A -0.10 9 6% 5 4 0 6 3 0

Relationship to School Grandparent N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0%

Relationship to School Donor 33 N/A N/A -0.06 33 N/A N/A -0.12 3 2% 1 2 0 1 2 0

Drive Time to School 0 - 5 minutes 53 N (.530) 30% 0.12 71 N (.464) 30% 0.17 17 11% 10 6 1 13 3 1

Drive Time to School 6 - 10 minutes 33 N (.332) 16% -0.17 63 N (.133) 23% -0.26 27 18% 12 12 3 21 2 4






Drive Time to School More than 45 minutes 0 N/A N/A -0.07 0 N/A N/A -0.06 1 1% 0 1 0 0 1 0

Child's Grade Preschool N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0%

Child's Grade Kindergarten N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0%

Child's Grade 1st N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0%

Child's Grade 2nd N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0%

Child's Grade 3rd N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0%

Child's Grade 4th 0 N/A N/A -0.02 100 N/A N/A 0.00 1 1% 0 1 0 1 0 0

Child's Grade 5th N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0%

Child's Grade 6th -100 N/A N/A -0.11 0 N/A N/A -0.11 1 1% 0 0 1 0 1 0





Child's Grade 11th 41 N (.164) 26% -0.12 73 N (.767) 53% -0.02 44 29% 24 14 6 37 2 5

Child's Grade 12th 35 N (.323) 24% -0.12 56 N (.220) 26% -0.15 48 32% 26 13 9 33 9 6

Child's GradeNo children in grades preschool -

12th N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0%

Generational Cohort 1925 - 1945 100 N/A N/A 0.03 100 N/A N/A 0.05 1 1% 1 0 0 1 0 0

Generational Cohort 1946 - 1961 27 Y (.016) 10% -0.26 61 Y (.016) 22% -0.25 56 37% 25 21 10 42 6 8

Generational Cohort 1962 - 1981 64 Y (.001) 62% 0.24 80 Y (.002) 58% 0.22 86 57% 59 23 4 71 13 2

Generational Cohort 1982 - 2001 0 N/A N/A -0.02 100 N/A N/A 0.00 1 1% 0 1 0 1 0 0

Race African-American 0 N/A N/A -0.07 100 N/A N/A 0.00 1 1% 0 1 0 1 0 0

Race Asian 25 N/A N/A -0.15 88 N/A N/A 0.01 8 5% 2 6 0 7 1 0

Race Caucasian 54 N (.199) 37% 0.08 73 N (.431) 36% 0.04 99 65% 63 26 10 78 15 6

Race Hispanic 48 N (.452) 32% 0.11 70 N (.867) 25% 0.03 27 18% 16 8 3 22 2 3

Race Other 67 N/A N/A 0.09 100 N/A N/A 0.20 3 2% 2 1 0 3 0 0


29

Average Grades Mostly A's 57 N (.075) 34% 0.14 80 Y (.018) 36% 0.18 81 53% 52 23 6 67 12 2

Average Grades Mostly B's 44 N (.554) 24% -0.06 66 N (.254) 12% -0.13 50 33% 27 18 5 39 5 6

Average Grades Mostly C's 15 N (.571) 16% -0.15 54 N (.628) 31% -0.13 13 9% 5 5 3 8 4 1

Length of Relationship Less than a year 47 N (.477) 20% 0.11 84 N (.374) 42% 0.17 19 13% 10 8 1 16 3 0

Length of Relationship 1 - 2 years 75 Y (.047) 76% 0.34 86 N (.113) 68% 0.27 28 18% 21 7 0 24 4 0

Length of Relationship 3 - 5 years 37 N (.309) 20% -0.09 66 N (.397) 31% -0.07 59 39% 31 19 9 45 8 6

Length of Relationship 6 - 10 years 26 Y (.022) 16% -0.40 52 Y (.022) 19% -0.40 27 18% 12 10 5 19 3 5

Length of Relationship 11 - 15 years 75 N/A N/A 0.16 100 N/A N/A 0.19 4 3% 3 1 0 4 0 0

Length of Relationship 16 - 20 years 0 N/A N/A -0.07 0 N/A N/A -0.06 1 1% 0 1 0 0 1 0


Length of Relationship More than 25 years 88 N/A N/A 0.33 88 N/A N/A 0.22 8 5% 7 1 0 7 1 0

Level of Education High School Graduate 67 N/A N/A 0.35 78 N/A N/A 0.27 9 6% 6 3 0 8 0 1

Level of Education Some College 43 N (.755) 20% -0.03 63 N (.688) 18% -0.07 30 20% 18 7 5 23 3 4

Level of Education Associate's Degree 58 N (.429) N/A 0.21 83 N (.277) N/A 0.30 12 8% 7 5 0 10 2 0

Level of Education Bachelor's Degree 45 N (.297) N/A -0.12 62 N (.156) N/A -0.16 53 35% 31 15 7 38 10 5

Level of Education Masters Degree 48 N (.361) 31% 0.10 84 N (.206) 69% 0.19 31 20% 17 12 2 26 5 0

Level of Education Doctorate 33 N/A N/A 0.07 100 N/A N/A 0.17 9 6% 4 4 1 9 0 0

Household Income $15,000 to $24,999 100 N/A N/A 0.08 100 N/A N/A 0.05 1 1% 1 0 0 1 0 0

Household Income $25,000 to $34,999 50 N/A N/A 0.01 100 N/A N/A 0.15 2 1% 1 1 0 2 0 0

Household Income $35,000 to $49,999 38 N/A N/A -0.15 50 N/A N/A -0.35 8 5% 5 1 2 6 0 2

Household Income $50,000 to $74,999 67 N (.362) 56% 0.22 73 N (.346) 28% 0.23 15 10% 11 3 1 12 2 1

Household Income $75,000 to $99,999 81 Y (.003) 87% 0.53 96 Y (.003) 89% 0.52 26 17% 21 5 0 25 1 0

Household Income $100,000 to $149,999 38 N (.684) 17% -0.06 62 N (.352) 20% -0.14 34 22% 17 13 4 24 7 3

Household Income $150,000 to $199,999 26 N (.450) 7% -0.16 74 N (.822) 38% -0.05 19 13% 7 10 2 15 3 1

Household Income $200,000+ 35 N (.068) 17% -0.28 65 N (.322) 36% -0.21 20 13% 10 7 3 15 3 2

All children enrolled No children of school age 67 N/A N/A 0.09 33 N/A N/A -0.07 3 2% 2 1 0 1 2 0

All children enrolled No 39 N (.511) 47% -0.11 50 N (.139) 20% -0.25 18 12% 10 5 3 11 5 2

All children enrolled Yes 48 N (.464) 16% 0.02 75 N (.154) 16% 0.04 130 86% 75 43 12 107 14 9

Reenrolling N/A 6 Y (.001) 14% -0.78 31 Y (.001) 5% -0.71 16 11% 6 5 5 9 3 4

Reenrolling No 48 N (.756) 78% -0.01 57 N (.718) 59% -0.07 21 14% 13 5 3 14 5 2

Reenrolling Yes 52 Y (.012) 15% 0.11 79 Y (.009) 17% 0.11 115 76% 68 39 8 96 14 5

International student N/A 47 N (1.000) N/A 0.00 71 N (1.000) N/A 0.00 152 100% 87 49 16 119 22 11

Christian character vs public Somewhat worse -100 N/A N/A -1.26 -75 N/A N/A -1.23 4 3% 0 0 4 0 1 3

Christian character vs public About the same -18 Y (.001) N/A -0.97 18 Y (.005) N/A -0.81 11 7% 2 5 4 4 5 2

Christian character vs public Somewhat better 38 N (.627) N/A -0.05 66 N (.212) N/A -0.13 56 37% 27 23 6 41 11 4

Christian character vs public Much better 68 Y (.000) N/A 0.31 88 Y (.000) N/A 0.34 76 50% 54 20 2 69 5 2

Academically competent teachers N/A0 N/A N/A -0.54 50 N/A N/A -0.40 6 4% 1 4 1 4 1 1

Academically competent teachers 1 to 37 Y (.000) N/A -0.63 26 Y (.000) N/A -0.79 27 18% 8 13 6 13 8 6

Academically competent teachers 4 to 558 Y (.000) N/A 0.19 82 Y (.000) N/A 0.21 119 78% 78 32 9 102 13 4

Bible / Religion curriculum N/A 17 N/A N/A -0.45 50 N/A N/A -0.40 6 4% 2 3 1 4 1 1

Bible / Religion curriculum 1 to 3 12 Y (.007) N/A -0.61 29 Y (.001) N/A -0.76 17 11% 7 5 5 9 4 4

Bible / Religion curriculum 4 to 5 53 Y (.000) N/A 0.11 78 Y (.000) N/A 0.13 129 85% 78 41 10 106 17 6

Challenging educational curriculum N/A0 N/A N/A -0.46 25 N/A N/A -0.44 4 3% 1 2 1 2 1 1

Challenging educational curriculum 1 to 3-29 Y (.000) N/A -1.03 12 Y (.000) N/A -1.10 17 11% 2 8 7 7 5 5

30

Challenging educational curriculum 4 to 558 Y (.000) N/A 0.17 80 Y (.000) N/A 0.18 131 86% 84 39 8 110 16 5

Christian character development N/A0 N/A N/A -0.46 25 N/A N/A -0.44 4 3% 1 2 1 2 1 1

Christian character development 1 to 30 Y (.000) N/A -0.81 24 Y (.000) N/A -0.90 29 19% 8 13 8 15 6 8

Christian character development 4 to 560 Y (.000) N/A 0.24 84 Y (.000) N/A 0.26 119 78% 78 34 7 102 15 2

Christian environment N/A 0 N/A N/A -0.52 40 N/A N/A -0.44 5 3% 1 3 1 3 1 1

Christian environment 1 to 3 -10 Y (.000) N/A -0.90 23 Y (.000) N/A -0.87 30 20% 6 15 9 14 9 7

Christian environment 4 to 5 63 Y (.000) N/A 0.28 85 Y (.000) N/A 0.26 117 77% 80 31 6 102 12 3

Communication with constituents N/A38 N (.108) N/A -0.37 62 N (.095) N/A -0.29 13 9% 7 4 2 10 1 2

Communication with constituents 1 to 35 Y (.000) N/A -0.54 33 Y (.000) N/A -0.69 40 26% 11 20 9 21 11 8

Communication with constituents 4 to 565 Y (.000) N/A 0.27 88 Y (.000) N/A 0.32 99 65% 69 25 5 88 10 1

Curriculum up-to-date N/A 23 Y (.006) N/A -0.59 46 Y (.007) N/A -0.61 13 9% 5 6 2 8 3 2

Curriculum up-to-date 1 to 3 5 Y (.001) N/A -0.64 32 Y (.000) N/A -0.86 22 14% 7 9 6 13 3 6

Curriculum up-to-date 4 to 5 57 Y (.000) N/A 0.19 81 Y (.000) N/A 0.23 117 77% 75 34 8 98 16 3

Discipline enforced consistently N/A31 N (.224) N/A -0.30 77 N (.165) N/A -0.25 13 9% 5 7 1 11 1 1

Discipline enforced consistently 1 to 314 Y (.000) N/A -0.49 45 Y (.000) N/A -0.47 42 28% 14 20 8 25 11 6

Discipline enforced consistently 4 to 563 Y (.000) N/A 0.25 81 Y (.000) N/A 0.24 97 64% 68 22 7 83 10 4

Educational objectives are clear N/A 29 N/A N/A -0.42 57 N/A N/A -0.40 7 5% 3 3 1 5 1 1

Educational objectives are clear 1 to 3 4 Y (.004) N/A -0.49 39 Y (.000) N/A -0.65 28 18% 7 15 6 16 7 5

Educational objectives are clear 4 to 5 58 Y (.000) N/A 0.15 79 Y (.000) N/A 0.19 117 77% 77 31 9 98 14 5

Educational vision for the school N/A33 N/A N/A -0.40 50 N/A N/A -0.40 6 4% 3 2 1 4 1 1

Educational vision for the school 1 to 3-15 Y (.000) N/A -0.75 22 Y (.000) N/A -0.89 27 18% 4 15 8 13 7 7

Educational vision for the school 4 to 561 Y (.000) N/A 0.20 83 Y (.000) N/A 0.23 119 78% 80 32 7 102 14 3

Engaging teaching N/A 0 N/A N/A -0.49 50 N/A N/A -0.40 6 4% 1 4 1 4 1 1

Engaging teaching 1 to 3 -6 Y (.000) N/A -0.74 23 Y (.000) N/A -0.80 35 23% 9 15 11 17 9 9

Engaging teaching 4 to 5 66 Y (.000) N/A 0.28 87 Y (.000) N/A 0.29 111 73% 77 30 4 98 12 1

Facility allows for adequate

learning environmentN/A

20 N/A N/A -0.43 40 N/A N/A -0.39 5 3% 2 2 1 3 1 1


learning environment1 to 3

6 Y (.003) N/A -0.66 35 Y (.001) N/A -0.76 17 11% 6 6 5 10 3 4


learning environment4 to 5

53 Y (.000) N/A 0.12 77 Y (.000) N/A 0.13 130 86% 79 41 10 106 18 6

Financial stability of school N/A 27 N (.243) N/A -0.23 73 N (.438) N/A -0.10 22 14% 8 12 2 17 4 1

Financial stability of school 1 to 3 7 Y (.004) N/A -0.73 29 Y (.001) N/A -0.80 14 9% 4 7 3 7 4 3

Financial stability of school 4 to 5 55 Y (.003) N/A 0.13 76 Y (.010) N/A 0.11 116 76% 75 30 11 95 14 7

High academic standards for

studentsN/A

0 N/A N/A -0.47 40 N/A N/A -0.39 5 3% 1 3 1 3 1 1

31


students1 to 3

-14 Y (.000) N/A -0.79 36 Y (.001) N/A -0.67 22 14% 3 13 6 12 6 4


students4 to 5

59 Y (.000) N/A 0.18 78 Y (.000) N/A 0.15 125 82% 83 33 9 104 15 6

High behavioral standards for

studentsN/A

20 N/A N/A -0.38 40 N/A N/A -0.39 5 3% 2 2 1 3 1 1


students1 to 3

20 Y (.000) N/A -0.44 52 Y (.000) N/A -0.45 44 29% 17 19 8 29 9 6


students4 to 5

59 Y (.000) N/A 0.22 81 Y (.000) N/A 0.23 103 68% 68 28 7 87 12 4

Individual attention provided for

studentsN/A

42 N (.247) N/A -0.27 67 N (.259) N/A -0.14 12 8% 7 3 2 9 2 1


students1 to 3

12 Y (.001) N/A -0.42 32 Y (.000) N/A -0.64 41 27% 14 18 9 21 12 8


students4 to 5

62 Y (.000) N/A 0.21 88 Y (.000) N/A 0.28 99 65% 66 28 5 89 8 2

Individual student differences are

accommodatedN/A

22 N (.066) N/A -0.35 57 Y (.036) N/A -0.37 23 15% 10 8 5 16 4 3


accommodated1 to 3

17 Y (.008) N/A -0.39 42 Y (.002) N/A -0.44 36 24% 14 14 8 21 9 6


accommodated4 to 5

65 Y (.000) N/A 0.24 86 Y (.000) N/A 0.26 93 61% 63 27 3 82 9 2

Key life skills are taught N/A 42 N (.292) N/A -0.23 67 N (.180) N/A -0.22 12 8% 6 5 1 9 2 1

Key life skills are taught 1 to 3 10 Y (.000) N/A -0.47 40 Y (.000) N/A -0.56 42 28% 14 18 10 25 9 8

Key life skills are taught 4 to 5 63 Y (.000) N/A 0.23 85 Y (.000) N/A 0.27 98 64% 67 26 5 85 11 2

Parent / teacher communication N/A43 N/A N/A -0.37 57 N/A N/A -0.35 7 5% 4 2 1 5 1 1

Parent / teacher communication 1 to 37 Y (.000) N/A -0.53 38 Y (.000) N/A -0.62 56 37% 18 24 14 31 15 10

Parent / teacher communication 4 to 572 Y (.000) N/A 0.37 93 Y (.000) N/A 0.43 89 59% 65 23 1 83 6 0

Parent involvement with school N/A30 N (.098) N/A -0.47 60 N (.101) N/A -0.31 10 7% 5 3 2 7 2 1

Parent involvement with school 1 to 318 Y (.004) N/A -0.39 48 Y (.001) N/A -0.43 40 26% 16 15 9 26 7 7

Parent involvement with school 4 to 560 Y (.000) N/A 0.20 81 Y (.000) N/A 0.20 102 67% 66 31 5 86 13 3

Head of School addresses parent

concernsN/A

35 N (.191) N/A -0.30 65 N (.221) N/A -0.20 17 11% 8 7 2 12 4 1


concerns1 to 3

-10 Y (.000) N/A -0.79 29 Y (.000) N/A -0.86 31 20% 7 14 10 18 4 9


concerns4 to 5

65 Y (.000) N/A 0.28 85 Y (.000) N/A 0.29 104 68% 72 28 4 89 14 1

Head of School leadership N/A 19 Y (.005) N/A -0.60 38 Y (.009) N/A -0.54 16 11% 7 5 4 9 4 3

Head of School leadership 1 to 3 -29 Y (.000) N/A -1.03 10 Y (.000) N/A -1.10 21 14% 2 11 8 9 5 7

Head of School leadership 4 to 5 64 Y (.000) N/A 0.27 87 Y (.000) N/A 0.28 115 76% 78 33 4 101 13 1

Head of School provides staff

oversight and accountabilityN/A

30 N (.105) N/A -0.31 61 N (.245) N/A -0.19 23 15% 10 10 3 16 5 2


oversight and accountability1 to 3

0 Y (.000) N/A -0.66 33 Y (.000) N/A -0.75 33 22% 9 15 9 19 6 8


oversight and accountability4 to 5

67 Y (.000) N/A 0.30 86 Y (.000) N/A 0.30 96 63% 68 24 4 84 11 132

Qualifications of teachers N/A 33 N/A N/A -0.31 67 N/A N/A -0.20 9 6% 4 4 1 7 1 1

Qualifications of teachers 1 to 3 -6 Y (.000) N/A -0.78 31 Y (.000) N/A -0.79 36 24% 8 18 10 19 9 8

Qualifications of teachers 4 to 5 65 Y (.000) N/A 0.29 85 Y (.000) N/A 0.29 107 70% 75 27 5 93 12 2

Reasonable tuition N/A 17 N/A N/A -0.45 50 N/A N/A -0.34 6 4% 2 3 1 4 1 1

Reasonable tuition 1 to 3 23 Y (.012) N/A -0.26 54 Y (.002) N/A -0.32 56 37% 23 23 10 36 14 6

Reasonable tuition 4 to 5 63 Y (.001) N/A 0.21 83 Y (.000) N/A 0.24 90 59% 62 23 5 79 7 4

Results of standardized tests N/A 56 N (.737) N/A 0.06 78 N (.848) N/A 0.03 27 18% 17 8 2 22 4 1

Results of standardized tests 1 to 3 9 Y (.003) N/A -0.46 50 Y (.001) N/A -0.52 32 21% 10 15 7 22 4 6

Results of standardized tests 4 to 5 57 Y (.030) N/A 0.14 76 Y (.007) N/A 0.17 93 61% 60 26 7 75 14 4

Safe learning environment N/A 14 N/A N/A -0.46 57 N/A N/A -0.30 7 5% 2 4 1 5 1 1

Safe learning environment 1 to 3 -10 Y (.044) N/A -0.62 40 N (.060) N/A -0.57 10 7% 1 7 2 6 2 2

Safe learning environment 4 to 5 53 Y (.005) N/A 0.08 74 Y (.011) N/A 0.06 135 89% 84 38 13 108 19 8

School Board oversight N/A 34 N (.086) N/A -0.21 64 N (.301) N/A -0.12 47 31% 23 17 7 34 9 4

School Board oversight 1 to 3 -10 Y (.001) N/A -0.69 40 Y (.002) N/A -0.65 20 13% 3 12 5 12 4 4

School Board oversight 4 to 5 67 Y (.000) N/A 0.28 82 Y (.002) N/A 0.22 85 56% 61 20 4 73 9 3

School's use of resources N/A 27 N (.243) N/A -0.23 64 N (.242) N/A -0.19 22 14% 9 10 3 15 6 1

School's use of resources 1 to 3 -18 Y (.000) N/A -0.92 23 Y (.000) N/A -0.84 22 14% 4 10 8 10 7 5

School's use of resources 4 to 5 64 Y (.000) N/A 0.23 82 Y (.000) N/A 0.21 108 71% 74 29 5 94 9 5

Significant financial aid is available N/A26 Y (.007) N/A -0.31 54 Y (.026) N/A -0.25 46 30% 21 16 9 30 11 5

Significant financial aid is available 1 to 339 N (.400) N/A -0.13 64 N (.120) N/A -0.24 33 22% 17 12 4 25 4 4

Significant financial aid is available 4 to 563 Y (.002) N/A 0.26 85 Y (.001) N/A 0.27 73 48% 49 21 3 64 7 2

Staff is customer service oriented N/A30 N (.156) N/A -0.38 60 N (.135) N/A -0.26 10 7% 4 5 1 7 2 1

Staff is customer service oriented 1 to 329 Y (.034) N/A -0.28 36 Y (.000) N/A -0.59 42 28% 20 14 8 22 13 7

Staff is customer service oriented 4 to 556 Y (.008) N/A 0.15 87 Y (.000) N/A 0.27 100 66% 63 30 7 90 7 3

Student admission standards N/A 33 N (.384) N/A -0.19 61 N (.263) N/A -0.17 18 12% 8 8 2 13 3 2

Student admission standards 1 to 3 11 Y (.002) N/A -0.53 43 Y (.001) N/A -0.54 28 18% 10 11 7 16 8 4

Student admission standards 4 to 5 58 Y (.001) N/A 0.17 80 Y (.001) N/A 0.17 106 70% 69 30 7 90 11 5

Students are well-prepared for the

next educational levelN/A

25 Y (.018) N/A -0.46 63 N (.072) N/A -0.31 16 11% 6 8 2 12 2 2


next educational level1 to 3

-25 Y (.000) N/A -0.85 15 Y (.000) N/A -0.92 20 13% 4 7 9 8 7 5


next educational level4 to 5

62 Y (.000) N/A 0.21 82 Y (.000) N/A 0.20 116 76% 77 34 5 99 13 4

Students feel accepted by their

peersN/A

15 Y (.048) N/A -0.52 54 N (.056) N/A -0.37 13 9% 4 7 2 9 2 2


peers1 to 3

0 Y (.002) N/A -0.64 45 Y (.012) N/A -0.52 20 13% 5 10 5 14 1 5


peers4 to 5

58 Y (.000) N/A 0.16 77 Y (.002) N/A 0.13 119 78% 78 32 9 96 19 4

Teachers are Christian role

modelsN/A

14 N/A N/A -0.42 57 N/A N/A -0.30 7 5% 2 4 1 5 1 1


models1 to 3

-21 Y (.000) N/A -1.04 21 Y (.000) N/A -0.93 19 13% 3 9 7 10 3 633


models4 to 5

59 Y (.000) N/A 0.19 79 Y (.000) N/A 0.16 126 83% 82 36 8 104 18 4

Teachers are up-to-date on

teaching methodologyN/A

52 N (.752) N/A -0.03 76 N (.669) N/A 0.00 21 14% 12 8 1 17 3 1


teaching methodology1 to 3

-4 Y (.001) N/A -0.59 32 Y (.000) N/A -0.70 25 16% 6 12 7 14 5 6


teaching methodology4 to 5

58 Y (.007) N/A 0.14 79 Y (.002) N/A 0.16 106 70% 69 29 8 88 14 4

Teachers exhibit care and concern

for studentsN/A

40 N (.224) N/A -0.28 70 N (.220) N/A -0.15 10 7% 5 4 1 8 1 1


for students1 to 3

-13 Y (.000) N/A -0.92 6 Y (.000) N/A -1.03 31 20% 7 13 11 12 9 10


for students4 to 5

64 Y (.000) N/A 0.28 89 Y (.000) N/A 0.30 111 73% 75 32 4 99 12 0

Teachers work well with parents N/A23 Y (.037) N/A -0.55 54 Y (.042) N/A -0.41 13 9% 6 4 3 9 2 2

Teachers work well with parents 1 to 313 Y (.000) N/A -0.47 40 Y (.000) N/A -0.59 45 30% 15 21 9 27 9 9

Teachers work well with parents 4 to 566 Y (.000) N/A 0.30 88 Y (.000) N/A 0.34 94 62% 66 24 4 83 11 0

Traditional values taught N/A 30 N (.126) N/A -0.43 60 N (.170) N/A -0.21 10 7% 4 5 1 7 2 1

Traditional values taught 1 to 3 -7 Y (.000) N/A -0.88 33 Y (.000) N/A -0.85 15 10% 3 8 4 10 0 5

Traditional values taught 4 to 5 54 Y (.000) N/A 0.14 76 Y (.000) N/A 0.12 127 84% 80 36 11 102 20 5

Use of technology in instruction N/A53 N (.706) N/A -0.02 82 N (.620) N/A 0.01 17 11% 10 6 1 15 1 1

Use of technology in instruction 1 to 37 Y (.000) N/A -0.61 30 Y (.000) N/A -0.75 27 18% 8 13 6 14 7 6

Use of technology in instruction 4 to 556 Y (.002) N/A 0.16 80 Y (.000) N/A 0.19 108 71% 69 30 9 90 14 4

Edline updated consistently N/A 25 N/A N/A -0.39 63 N/A N/A -0.25 8 5% 3 4 1 6 1 1

Edline updated consistently 1 to 3 33 Y (.003) N/A -0.25 55 Y (.000) N/A -0.31 73 48% 36 25 12 50 13 10

Edline updated consistently 4 to 5 63 Y (.000) N/A 0.31 89 Y (.000) N/A 0.36 71 47% 48 20 3 63 8 0

Teachers reply to emails in a

timely fashionN/A

46 N (.268) N/A -0.26 77 N (.293) N/A -0.13 13 9% 7 5 1 11 1 1


timely fashion1 to 3

18 Y (.001) N/A -0.43 41 Y (.000) N/A -0.55 44 29% 18 16 10 27 8 9


timely fashion4 to 5

60 Y (.000) N/A 0.23 84 Y (.000) N/A 0.27 95 63% 62 28 5 81 13 1

Teachers respond to phone

messages in a timely mannerN/A

50 N (.685) N/A 0.05 73 N (.855) N/A 0.02 44 29% 25 16 3 33 10 1


messages in a timely manner1 to 3

9 Y (.000) N/A -0.65 34 Y (.000) N/A -0.74 35 23% 12 14 9 22 3 10


messages in a timely manner4 to 5

63 Y (.001) N/A 0.28 88 Y (.000) N/A 0.34 73 48% 50 19 4 64 9 0

Math program N/A 27 N (.141) N/A -0.40 73 N (.199) N/A -0.19 11 7% 4 6 1 9 1 1

Math program 1 to 3 9 Y (.000) N/A -0.58 37 Y (.000) N/A -0.68 35 23% 13 12 10 20 8 7

Math program 4 to 5 61 Y (.000) N/A 0.23 82 Y (.000) N/A 0.24 106 70% 70 31 5 90 13 3

Science program N/A 46 N (.564) N/A -0.11 71 N (.451) N/A -0.09 24 16% 12 11 1 18 5 1

Science program 1 to 3 -5 Y (.000) N/A -0.68 32 Y (.000) N/A -0.77 22 14% 6 9 7 11 7 4

Science program 4 to 5 58 Y (.002) N/A 0.17 79 Y (.001) N/A 0.18 106 70% 69 29 8 90 10 6

34

Social studies program N/A 38 N (.266) N/A -0.26 77 N (.345) N/A -0.09 13 9% 6 6 1 11 1 1

Social studies program 1 to 3 0 Y (.008) N/A -0.58 39 Y (.003) N/A -0.66 18 12% 4 10 4 10 5 3

Social studies program 4 to 5 55 Y (.005) N/A 0.11 75 Y (.006) N/A 0.11 121 80% 77 33 11 98 16 7

English program N/A 33 N (.215) N/A -0.31 75 N (.321) N/A -0.09 12 8% 5 6 1 10 1 1

English program 1 to 3 10 Y (.001) N/A -0.64 38 Y (.000) N/A -0.75 21 14% 7 9 5 13 3 5

English program 4 to 5 55 Y (.001) N/A 0.14 76 Y (.000) N/A 0.14 119 78% 75 34 10 96 18 5

Foreign language program N/A 40 N (.371) N/A -0.19 73 N (.384) N/A -0.08 15 10% 7 7 1 12 2 1

Foreign language program 1 to 3 18 Y (.009) N/A -0.33 57 Y (.006) N/A -0.35 44 29% 16 20 8 31 7 6

Foreign language program 4 to 5 61 Y (.004) N/A 0.19 77 Y (.006) N/A 0.18 93 61% 64 22 7 76 13 4

Quantity of extracurricular

activitiesN/A

13 Y (.000) N/A -0.76 47 Y (.002) N/A -0.57 15 10% 5 7 3 10 2 3


activities1 to 3

0 Y (.021) N/A -0.54 50 Y (.044) N/A -0.48 16 11% 2 12 2 10 4 2


activities4 to 5

57 Y (.000) N/A 0.17 77 Y (.001) N/A 0.13 121 80% 80 30 11 99 16 6

Quality of extracurricular activities N/A29 Y (.000) N/A -0.70 50 Y (.007) N/A -0.46 14 9% 7 4 3 10 1 3

Quality of extracurricular activities 1 to 3-5 Y (.002) N/A -0.64 25 Y (.000) N/A -0.84 20 13% 3 13 4 10 5 5

Quality of extracurricular activities 4 to 558 Y (.000) N/A 0.19 81 Y (.000) N/A 0.20 118 78% 77 32 9 99 16 3

Bus Transportation N/A 33 N (.054) N/A -0.23 59 N (.059) N/A -0.22 49 32% 24 17 8 33 12 4

Bus Transportation 1 to 3 11 N/A N/A -0.45 33 N/A N/A -0.41 9 6% 2 6 1 4 4 1

Bus Transportation 4 to 5 57 Y (.009) N/A 0.17 81 Y (.012) N/A 0.16 94 62% 61 26 7 82 6 6

Athletics N/A 47 N (.371) N/A -0.13 65 N (.294) N/A -0.11 17 11% 10 5 2 13 2 2

Athletics 1 to 3 -17 Y (.000) N/A -0.91 17 Y (.000) N/A -1.05 23 15% 5 9 9 11 5 7

Athletics 4 to 5 60 Y (.000) N/A 0.21 83 Y (.000) N/A 0.23 112 74% 72 35 5 95 15 2

Fine arts N/A 30 Y (.009) N/A -0.40 59 N (.053) N/A -0.28 27 18% 13 9 5 20 3 4

Fine arts 1 to 3 38 N (.505) N/A -0.10 63 N (.111) N/A -0.38 16 11% 8 6 2 12 2 2

Fine arts 4 to 5 52 Y (.007) N/A 0.11 75 Y (.009) N/A 0.13 109 72% 66 34 9 87 17 5

Enrolled in Directed Studies N/A 30 Y (.037) N/A -0.39 48 Y (.005) N/A -0.48 23 15% 12 6 5 16 2 5

Enrolled in Directed Studies No 50 N (.159) N/A 0.06 74 N (.054) N/A 0.07 121 80% 71 39 11 95 20 6

Enrolled in Directed Studies Yes 50 N/A N/A 0.23 100 N/A N/A 0.28 8 5% 4 4 0 8 0 0

Value of educationAbove average value for what

we pay 66 Y (.003) N/A 0.28 89 Y (.001) N/A 0.30 64 42% 43 20 1 58 5 1

Value of education Average value 21 Y (.016) N/A -0.31 60 Y (.018) N/A -0.31 43 28% 16 20 7 28 13 2

Value of education Not a good value at all -100 N/A N/A -0.21 -100 N/A N/A -0.27 1 1% 0 0 1 0 0 1

Value of educationPaying more than the program is

worth -60 Y (.000) N/A -1.66 -50 Y (.000) N/A -1.89 10 7% 0 4 6 1 3 6

Value of education Very high value for what we pay89 Y (.000) N/A 0.61 100 Y (.000) N/A 0.66 28 18% 25 3 0 28 0 0

Tuition a sacrifice Not at all 33 N/A N/A -0.01 67 N/A N/A -0.12 3 2% 1 2 0 2 1 0

Tuition a sacrifice Somewhat 38 N (.477) N/A -0.07 72 N (.754) N/A -0.03 61 40% 31 22 8 47 11 3

Tuition a sacrifice Moderately 69 N (.345) N/A 0.25 85 N (.369) N/A 0.23 13 9% 9 4 0 11 2 0

Tuition a sacrifice Very much so 54 N (.355) N/A 0.07 70 N (.515) N/A 0.06 69 45% 44 18 7 55 7 7

Child participation Drama program 62 N (.279) N/A 0.29 69 N (.535) N/A 0.15 13 9% 9 3 1 10 2 1

Child participation Vocal music 58 N (.301) N/A 0.29 75 N (.502) N/A 0.17 12 8% 9 1 2 9 3 0

Child participation Instrumental music 41 N (.314) N/A -0.19 50 N (.226) N/A -0.24 22 14% 14 3 5 14 5 3

Child participation Visual arts 75 N (.186) N/A 0.37 83 N (.277) N/A 0.30 12 8% 9 3 0 10 2 0

Child participation Dance 64 N (.117) N/A 0.31 91 N (.091) N/A 0.33 22 14% 15 6 1 20 2 035

Child participation Theatre arts 57 N (.321) N/A 0.25 71 N (.402) N/A 0.21 14 9% 10 2 2 11 2 1

Child participation Football 66 N (.147) N/A 0.23 84 N (.308) N/A 0.15 32 21% 22 9 1 28 3 1

Child participation Girls volleyball 36 N (.621) N/A -0.14 64 N (.989) N/A 0.00 11 7% 7 1 3 9 0 2

Child participation Girls cross country 0 N/A N/A -0.02 100 N/A N/A 0.00 1 1% 0 1 0 1 0 0

Child participation Boys cross country 60 N/A N/A 0.10 80 N/A N/A 0.03 5 3% 4 0 1 4 1 0

Child participation Girls tennis 100 N/A N/A 0.08 100 N/A N/A 0.05 1 1% 1 0 0 1 0 0

Child participation Girls basketball 36 N (.729) N/A -0.10 64 N (.868) N/A -0.05 11 7% 4 7 0 7 4 0

Child participation Boys basketball 15 Y (.002) N/A -0.77 38 Y (.008) N/A -0.70 13 9% 6 3 4 8 2 3

Child participation Girls soccer -22 N/A N/A -0.69 11 N/A N/A -0.94 9 6% 2 3 4 5 0 4

Child participation Boys soccer 47 N (.862) N/A -0.04 74 N (.830) N/A 0.03 19 13% 11 6 2 15 3 1

Child participation Wrestling 29 N/A N/A 0.01 86 N/A N/A 0.12 7 5% 3 3 1 6 1 0

Child participation Baseball 8 N (.165) N/A -0.39 50 N (.079) N/A -0.49 12 8% 3 7 2 8 2 2

Child participation Softball 17 N/A N/A -0.35 33 N/A N/A -0.19 6 4% 2 3 1 3 2 1

Child participation Girls track & field, 38 N/A N/A -0.10 50 N/A N/A -0.20 8 5% 5 1 2 6 0 2

Child participation Boys track & field 40 N (.526) N/A -0.16 67 N (.735) N/A -0.08 15 10% 9 3 3 11 3 1

Child participation Boys volleyball 63 N/A N/A 0.23 88 N/A N/A 0.33 8 5% 5 3 0 7 1 0

Child participation Golf 64 N (.806) N/A 0.07 73 N (.872) N/A 0.05 11 7% 8 2 1 9 1 1

Child participation Boys tennis 71 N/A N/A 0.20 100 N/A N/A 0.39 7 5% 5 2 0 7 0 0

Child participation Cheer 36 N (.799) N/A -0.01 73 N (.731) N/A 0.05 11 7% 4 7 0 8 3 0

Child participation Song 67 N/A N/A 0.13 67 N/A N/A -0.01 3 2% 2 1 0 2 1 0

Match Token No 18 Y (.000) 33% -0.52 47 Y (.003) 23% -0.43 34 22% 13 14 7 20 10 4

Match Token Yes 55 Y (.000) 29% 0.15 78 Y (.003) 28% 0.13 118 78% 74 35 9 99 12 7

36

Student Cross Tab Net Referral Score 33 Net Satisfacton Score 68

Closing Date: 6/15/2012Total

Responses40 Net Referral Score Net Satisfacton Score

Question Answer Referral ANOVA % Effect Satisfaction ANOVA % Effect Responses % Resp Promoters Passives Detractors Advocates Apathetics Assassins

School as a whole Whittier Christian High School33 19% 68 40% 40 100% 22 9 9 29 9 2

Gender Female 39 N (.379) 25% 0.12 72 N (.783) 43% -0.05 18 45% 11 3 4 13 5 0

Gender Male 27 N (.379) 17% -0.10 64 N (.783) 34% 0.04 22 55% 11 6 5 16 4 2

Relationship to School Current Parent or Guardian N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0%

Relationship to School Past Parent N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0%

Relationship to School School Board Member N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0%

Relationship to School Member of Sponsoring ChurchN/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0%

Relationship to School Teacher or Other Staff N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0%

Relationship to School Alumnus 0 N/A N/A -0.04 0 N/A N/A -0.06 1 3% 0 1 0 0 1 0

Relationship to School Current Student 33 N (1.000) 71% 0.00 68 N (1.000) 75% 0.00 40 100% 22 9 9 29 9 2

Relationship to SchoolVolunteer - Leader (besides

School Board) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0%

Relationship to School Volunteer - Other N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0%

Relationship to School Grandparent N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0%

Relationship to School Donor N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0%

Length of Relationship Less than a year 60 N/A N/A 0.22 80 N/A N/A 0.24 5 13% 3 2 0 4 1 0

Length of Relationship 1 - 2 years 6 N (.168) 2% -0.24 61 N (.783) 10% -0.05 18 45% 7 5 6 12 5 1

Length of Relationship 3 - 5 years 69 N (.054) 70% 0.44 85 N (.343) 72% 0.22 13 33% 11 0 2 11 2 0


Student Grade 9th Grade 27 N (.714) 65% 0.00 67 N (.736) 75% 0.03 15 38% 7 5 3 10 5 0

Student Grade 10th Grade 8 N (.076) 59% -0.36 58 N (.317) 76% -0.17 12 30% 5 3 4 9 1 2

Student Grade 11th Grade 25 N/A N/A 0.00 75 N/A N/A 0.12 4 10% 2 1 1 3 1 0

Student Grade 12th Grade 78 N/A N/A 0.44 78 N/A N/A 0.05 9 23% 8 0 1 7 2 0

Years Attended 1 year 56 N/A N/A 0.22 67 N/A N/A 0.11 9 23% 6 2 1 6 3 0

Years Attended 2 years 22 N/A N/A -0.13 78 N/A N/A -0.07 9 23% 4 3 2 8 0 1

Years Attended 3 years 0 N/A N/A -0.09 67 N/A N/A 0.00 3 8% 1 1 1 2 1 0

Years Attended 4 years 100 N/A N/A 0.35 80 N/A N/A 0.05 5 13% 5 0 0 4 1 0

Years Attended 8 years -100 N/A N/A -0.09 0 N/A N/A -0.06 1 3% 0 0 1 0 1 0




Years Attended More than 12 years 100 N/A N/A 0.04 100 N/A N/A 0.00 1 3% 1 0 0 1 0 0

Enrolled in Directed Studies N/A 25 N/A N/A 0.04 75 N/A N/A -0.01 4 10% 1 3 0 3 1 0

Enrolled in Directed Studies No 32 N (.701) N/A -0.01 68 N (.765) N/A -0.02 34 85% 20 5 9 25 7 2

Enrolled in Directed Studies Yes 50 N/A N/A 0.00 50 N/A N/A 0.06 2 5% 1 1 0 1 1 0

Match Token No -17 N/A N/A -0.44 50 N/A N/A -0.44 6 15% 2 1 3 4 1 1

Match Token Yes 41 Y (.023) 14% 0.13 71 Y (.032) 22% 0.13 34 85% 20 8 6 25 8 1


37


Subgroups Report

The Subgroups report looks at the relative satisfaction and willingness to refer of subgroups within a

dimension, such as Generation X parents compared to Baby Boomer parents. Only statistically significant

results are reported.

38


Understanding the Subgroups Report

On the main Cross-Tabs Report, we used F-tests to compare

the satisfaction and referral scores of subcategories to the

whole, such as “Are Baby Boomers significantly more satisfied

with our school than all our survey respondents.”

A second way to ask the question is: “Are Baby Boomers

significantly more (or less) satisfied than Generation X’ers?”

That’s exactly what the “Comparison between Subgroups”

Report does. It looks at all the relationships within a category

(question), and creates a line only if either referral or

satisfaction are significant. To be more user friendly, if the

relationship is not significant (‘p’ < .05) the correlation is not

reported.

(Like the earlier “group to the whole comparison,” the

“subcategory to subcategory” F-tests use transformed raw test

scores -- square root method. The decimal reported is a two-

tail Pearson (‘p’) score. A “.000” indicates a p score of less

than .001, which is highly significant.)

The Subgroups Report is a very powerful way to answer

questions like: Are higher income parents more satisfied than

lower income parents? Or are more educated parents more

satisfied than less educated parents? Where differences are

significant, the subcategories answers to these questions

become very important -- helping you understand “the why of

it.”

Note that on the Subgroup report, only statistically significant

results are reported – the F-test must pass on either the

satisfaction or willingness to refer results.

39

Col # Label ExplanationLowest

Possible Score

High Possible

ScoreCol # Label Explanation

Lowest

Possible

Score

High

Possible

Score

1 Referral

Net referral score of

the group with the

higher net referral

score

(-100) 100 6 SatisfactionNet Satisfaction

Score(-100) 100

2 Group

Subgroup with the

higher referral score

within the dimension

N/A N/A 7 Group

Subgroup with the

higher satisfaction

score within the

dimension

N/A N/A

3 ANOVA

Result of the F-test

comparison

between the two

groups

.000 0.99 8 ANOVA

Result of F-test

comparison

between the two

groups

.000 0.99

4 Referral

Net referral score of

the group with the

lower net referral

score

(-100) 100 9 Satisfaction

Net satisfaction

score of the group

with the lower net

satisfaction score

(-100) 100

5 Group

Subgroup with the

lower net referral

score within the

dimension

N/A N/A 10 Group

Subgroup with the

lower satisfaction

score within the

dimension

N/A N/A

Table 1

Understanding the Subgroups Tab Report


ReferralGroup

ANOVA ReferralGroup

SatisfactionGroup

ANOV

A SatisfactionGroup

Drive Time to School62 26 - 30 minutes Y (.029) 25 16 - 20 minutes 86 26 - 30 minutes Y (.041) 64 16 - 20 minutes

62 26 - 30 minutes Y (.038) 33 6 - 10 minutes 86 26 - 30 minutes Y (.029) 63 6 - 10 minutes

Generational Cohort64 1962 - 1981 Y (.003) 27 1946 - 1961 80 1962 - 1981 Y (.004) 61 1946 - 1961

Length of Relationship75 1 - 2 years Y (.008) 26 6 - 10 years 86 1 - 2 years Y (.019) 52 6 - 10 years

Household Income81 $75,000 to $99,999 Y (.003) 38 $100,000 to $149,999 96 $75,000 to $99,999 Y (.003) 62 $100,000 to $149,999

81 $75,000 to $99,999 Y (.000) 26 $150,000 to $199,999 96 $75,000 to $99,999 Y (.001) 74 $150,000 to $199,999

81 $75,000 to $99,999 Y (.007) 35 $200,000+ 96 $75,000 to $99,999 Y (.011) 65 $200,000+

Reenrolling52 Yes Y (.000) 6 N/A 79 Yes Y (.001) 31 N/A

Christian character vs public68 Much better Y (.000) -18 About the same 88 Much better Y (.000) 18 About the same

38 Somewhat better Y (.007) -18 About the same 66 Somewhat better Y (.030) 18 About the same

68 Much better Y (.005) 38 Somewhat better 88 Much better Y (.001) 66 Somewhat better

Enrolled in Directed Studies50 No Y (.048) 30 N/A 74 No Y (.008) 48 N/A

Value of education

66

Above average value for

what we pay Y (.000) 21Average value

89


what we pay Y (.000) 60Average value

66


what we pay Y (.000) -60

Paying more than the

program is worth 89


what we pay Y (.000) -50


program is worth

89

Very high value for what

we pay Y (.007) 66


what we pay 100


we pay Y (.004) 89


what we pay

21Average value

Y (.001) -60


program is worth 60Average value

Y (.000) -50


program is worth

89


we pay Y (.000) 21Average value

100


we pay Y (.000) 60Average value

89


we pay Y (.000) -60


program is worth 100


we pay Y (.000) -50


program is worthChild participation

62 Drama program Y (.034) 8 Baseball 69 Drama program N (.114) 50 Baseball

58 Vocal music Y (.049) 8 Baseball 75 Vocal music N (.101) 50 Baseball

75 Visual arts Y (.043) 36 Girls basketball 83 Visual arts N (.152) 64 Girls basketball

75 Visual arts Y (.042) 15 Boys basketball 83 Visual arts Y (.030) 38 Boys basketball

75 Visual arts Y (.014) 8 Baseball 83 Visual arts Y (.040) 50 Baseball

64 Dance Y (.012) 15 Boys basketball 91 Dance Y (.004) 38 Boys basketball

64 Dance Y (.008) 8 Baseball 91 Dance Y (.007) 50 Baseball

57 Theatre arts N (.055) 15 Boys basketball 71 Theatre arts Y (.049) 38 Boys basketball

57 Theatre arts Y (.044) 8 Baseball 71 Theatre arts N (.081) 50 Baseball

66 Football Y (.013) 15 Boys basketball 84 Football Y (.011) 38 Boys basketball

66 Football Y (.040) 8 Baseball 84 Football Y (.035) 50 Baseball

Match Token55 Yes Y (.000) 18 No 78 Yes Y (.003) 47 No

Comparisons between Subgroups

41


Leverage Report

The Leverage Report lists out, in order, program elements that most impact satisfaction and willingness

to refer, from most to least impactful. Note that any given program element may reflect a strength or a

weakness. (See the Satisfaction Quadrant report to determine that.)

42

Parent Satisfaction and Referral Survey 3.0

© 2011-12 GraceWorks Ministries www.GraceWorksMinistries.org (719) 278-9600

Average Importance / Leverage – For program elements only,

the top score for each program element is the average importance

(1 to 5, 5 being high), for all respondents to that program element.

(“How important is …?”)

The lower number is the leverage score. Leverage is an attempt to

reduce the efficacy towards increasing satisfaction by improving that

particular program element relative to all the others. In other words,

it is an attempt to answer the question, in one scale, to:

Leverage Scale

The leverage score attempts to answer the question: What

programmatic improvements will most improve overall satisfaction?

(The answer, in your case, is that teachers need to work well with

parents.)

The leverage score is based on the following:

(1) The relative importance of the program item (25%). The higher

the average importance, the greater the leverage score.

(2) The difference in net satisfaction and willingness to refer

between individuals who scored this item high (5 or 4) versus

low (2 or 1) (25%) The greater this difference, the higher the

leverage score.

(3) The difference in effect sizes (power) for satisfaction and

willingness to refer for individuals who scored the item high or

low (25%). The higher the effect size between high and low

program effectiveness ratings, the higher the leverage score.

(4) The variability, or “spread,” of people answers to the questions

(25%). (In other words, if the far majority of people felt this

item was done well, then the leverage decreases.)

(5) A small adjustment for the variability of answers (Standard

Deviation) for respondents within program rating categories

(plus or minus 5%). The more consistent the satisfaction /

referral levels for programmatic effectiveness ratings, the larger

the leverage score.

(6) An adjustment for non-response. Items with significant non-

response will have lower leverage scores. The adjustment is

small except when non-response exceeds 20%. (Subtraction of

the squared percent of non-responses, typically no more than

25%.)

The scale for leverage is 0 to 1000.

In addition to the leverage scores, the leverage scores in the PSRS

version 3.0 include: (1) Percentile ranks of effectiveness scores. This compares

your effectiveness ratings for each program element with

effectiveness ratings of all the other schools in our

database. This feature was launched with data from over

60 schools in PSRS 2.0, with another 30 current PSRS clients

to be scored by the end of 2011. One of the leverage scores

sorts is by percentile rank, highest to lowest. You would

expect the highest percentile items (if over the 75th

percentile) to be areas of strength for your school.

(2) Difference (Quality gap), importance, and effectiveness

scores are also included with the PSRS, for the very first

time, and the leverage scores are sorted on each. For each

sort, the items on the top of the lists are most problematic

(difference), most important to your parents (importance),

43

Parent Satisfaction and Referral Survey 3.0

© 2011-12 GraceWorks Ministries www.GraceWorksMinistries.org (719) 278-9600

and most effectively done – relative to the other items –

(effectiveness).

(3) One leverage sort includes the satisfaction quadrant

rankings, which are secondarily sorted by difference (quality

gap) scores. What you are most concerned about are

“Disgust me” items with high difference and high leverage

scores. The top ten areas for improvement are highlighted.

44

Rank Program Element Leverage Difference Quadrant Percentile Importance Effectiveness

1 Teachers exhibit care and concern for students 847 0.71 Disgust 4 4.79 4.08

2 Parent / teacher communication 841 1.15 Disgust 4 4.72 3.56

3 Engaging teaching 825 0.87 Disgust 20 4.83 3.96

4 Qualifications of teachers 813 0.93 Disgust 10 4.81 3.88

5 Christian environment 794 0.64 Disgust 13 4.81 4.17

6 Students are well-prepared for the next educational level 743 0.67 Disgust 35 4.83 4.16

7 Christian character development 735 0.71 Disgust 19 4.87 4.16

8 Head of School addresses parent concerns 725 0.65 Disgust N/A 4.66 4.01

9 Head of School provides staff oversight and accountability 719 0.93 Disgust N/A 4.80 3.88

10 Head of School leadership 717 0.42 Thrill N/A 4.64 4.21

11 Challenging educational curriculum 698 0.36 Thrill 77 4.71 4.35

12 Teachers are Christian role models 689 0.55 19 4.81 4.26

13 Educational vision for the school 679 0.49 Thrill 48 4.61 4.12

14 Teachers respond to phone messages in a timely manner 669 0.91 Disgust N/A 4.64 3.73

15 Communication with constituents 650 0.69 Annoy 23 4.53 3.84

16 Individual attention provided for students 620 0.89 Disgust 15 4.71 3.82

17 Academically competent teachers 620 0.84 Disgust 19 4.94 4.10

18 Teachers work well with parents 598 0.74 Annoy 4 4.53 3.78

19 School's use of resources 583 0.43 Frill 33 4.46 4.03

20 Math program 566 0.77 Disgust N/A 4.66 3.89

21 Athletics 560 0.11 Frill N/A 4.26 4.15

22 High academic standards for students 553 0.46 Thrill 42 4.71 4.25

23 Teachers reply to emails in a timely fashion 544 0.91 Disgust N/A 4.70 3.78

24 Curriculum up-to-date 529 0.60 55 4.72 4.12

25 Edline updated consistently 513 1.51 Disgust N/A 4.69 3.19

26 Discipline enforced consistently 510 0.95 Disgust 20 4.65 3.70

27 Key life skills are taught 504 0.73 Annoy 15 4.48 3.76

28 Traditional values taught 498 0.43 Thrill 20 4.70 4.27

29 High behavioral standards for students 492 0.90 Disgust 10 4.73 3.83

30 Science program 482 0.54 N/A 4.63 4.09

31 Teachers are up-to-date on teaching methodology 482 0.64 Disgust 30 4.64 4.00

32 Quality of extracurricular activities 466 0.25 Frill N/A 4.39 4.14

33 Educational objectives are clear 460 0.56 49 4.68 4.12

34 Reasonable tuition 459 1.02 Disgust 9 4.61 3.59

35 School Board oversight 407 0.19 Frill 56 4.10 3.90

36 Facility allows for adequate learning environment 391 0.48 Thrill 55 4.69 4.21

37 Use of technology in instruction 390 0.37 Frill 68 4.39 4.01

38 Staff is customer service oriented 386 0.55 27 4.44 3.89

39 Individual student differences are accommodated 381 0.61 Annoy 35 4.39 3.78

40 English program 376 0.48 Thrill N/A 4.64 4.16

41 Safe learning environment 372 0.39 Thrill 27 4.82 4.43

Program Elements by Leverage Score

45

42 Bible / Religion curriculum 367 0.26 Thrill 44 4.66 4.40

43 Financial stability of school 348 0.34 Frill 71 4.53 4.19

44 Parent involvement with school 299 0.46 Frill 15 4.25 3.79

45 Foreign language program 293 0.51 N/A 4.28 3.77

46 Social studies program 292 0.29 Frill N/A 4.51 4.22

47 Student admission standards 276 0.36 Frill 41 4.32 3.95

48 Results of standardized tests 264 0.38 Frill 4 4.27 3.89

49 Students feel accepted by their peers 260 0.34 Frill 51 4.40 4.06

50 Significant financial aid is available 229 0.21 Frill 48 3.96 3.75

51 Quantity of extracurricular activities 154 -0.07 Frill N/A 4.11 4.18

52 Bus Transportation* 131 -0.62 Frill N/A 3.67 4.29

53 Fine arts 57 -0.02 Frill N/A 4.16 4.19

* Indicates a small response size in the 1 to 3 range, which means the school is doing well in this area, but also means the validity of the leverage score is questionable.

46











































Program Elements by Percentile

47














48











































Program Elements by Importance

49














50











































Program Elements by Effectiveness

51














52











































Program Elements by Difference

53














54











































Program Elements by Quadrant

55














56


Satisfaction Quadrant

The “Thrill me,” “Disgust me,” “Annoy me,” and “Frill me” program elements, at least in terms of their

impact on satisfaction and willingness to refer. Note that not all items are reported here. Some are too

close to call, even for a computer.

57

GraceWorks Ministries Parent Satisfaction and Referral Survey (Ver.3.0), © 2011

Understanding the Satisfaction Quadrants

What program elements thrill, chill, or frill the people at your

school most in the position to know?

We ask your teachers, parents, volunteers and board to rate the

importance and effectiveness of 40 standard variables, and typically

a few of yours as well.

The satisfaction quadrants are determined as follows. First, any

program element whose mean average score is greater than the

mean of all items in importance will be either a “Thrill me” or a

“Disgust me,” by virtue of its relative importance.

Likewise, items whose mean importance answers fall below the

mean importance scores of every item are either an “Annoy me”

or a “Disgust me,” again by virtue of their relative importance.

To determine whether an item is either positive (“Thrill me”) or

(“Frill me”), the zDif score must be lower than -.20. zDif

expresses the difference between the mean importance for an

item less the mean effectiveness for that item. (The denominator

is the standard deviation of all items.)

Likewise, negative items (“Disgust me” or “Annoy me”) will have a

zDif greater than .20.

Practically speaking, using zDif scores this way expresses the

difference between importance and effectiveness means in relative

terms – relative importance of this item (compared to the rest)

LESS relative effectiveness of this item (compared to the rest).

Using .20 instead of zero eliminates program elements too close to

call, even for a computer.

As a practical matter, for schools doing really well in satisfaction,

we also have to eliminate program elements that end up on the

“Disgust me” list if the actual difference (DIFF, not zDIF) is less

than .50. Typically, items less than .50 in DIFF are NOT

problematic.

Both the .20 rule and the .50 rule mean that not every program

element tested (both ours and yours) will show up in one of the

quadrants. If it is a high leverage item, you should work to

improve its relative effectiveness, so that it ends up on the “Thrill

me” list.

These findings should be entirely consistent with the differentials

which are reported in the next section.

58

Disgust Me Thrill Me Fail to fix these and create Detractors Do well here to create Promoters

Teachers exhibit care and concern for students (847, 0.71)

Parent / Teacher communication (841, 1.15)

Engaging teaching (825, 0.87)

Qualifications of teachers (813, 0.93)

Christian environment (794, 0.64)

Students are well-prepared for the next educational level (743, 0.67)

Christian character development (735, 0.71)

Head of School addresses parent concerns (725, 0.65)

Head of School provides staff oversight and accountability (719, 0.93)

Teachers respond to phone messages in a timely manner (669, 0.91)

Individual attention provided for students (620, 0.89)

Academically competent teachers (620, 0.84)

Math program (566, 0.77)

Teachers reply to emails in a timely fashion (544, 0.91)

Edline updated consistently (513, 1.51)

Discipline enforced consistently (510, 0.95)

High behavioral standards for students (492, 0.9)

Teachers are up-to-date on teaching methodology (482, 0.64)

Reasonable tuition (459, 1.02)

Head of School leadership (717, 0.42)

Challenging educational curriculum (698, 0.36)

Educational vision for the school (679, 0.49)

High academic standards for students (553, 0.46)

Traditional values taught (498, 0.43)

Facility allows for adequate learning environment (391, 0.48)

English program (376, 0.48)

Safe learning environment (372, 0.39)

Bible / Religion curriculum (367, 0.26)

Annoy Me Frill Me Enough of these will turn perfectly good Promoters into Passives Program elements which you do well, but are not in the top 50%

of Importance. These help less than Thrill Me’s above.

Program Elements Table Fix the “Disgust Me” factors first, and keep improving the “Thrill Me” elements.

Do something with the “Annoy Me” elements, if you can. Find a volunteer for the “Frill Me.”

Not Important to Parents

Done

Wel

l (E

ffec

tivel

y)

Done

Poorl

y (In

effe

ctiv

ely)

Very Important to Parents

59

Disgust Me Thrill Me Fail to fix these and create Detractors Do well here to create Promoters

Annoy Me Frill Me Enough of these will turn perfectly good Promoters into Passives Program elements which you do well, but are not in the top 50%

of Importance. These help less than Thrill Me’s above.

Communication with constituents (650, 0.69)

Teachers work well with parents (598, 0.74)

Key life skills are taught (504, 0.73)

Individual student differences are accommodated (381, 0.61)

School's use of resources (583, 0.43)

Athletics (560, 0.11)

Quality of extracurricular activities (466, 0.25)

School Board oversight (407, 0.19)

Use of technology in instruction (390, 0.37)

Financial stability of school (348, 0.34)

Parent involvement with school (299, 0.46)

Social studies program (292, 0.29)

Student admission standards (276, 0.36)

Results of standardized tests (264, 0.38)

Students feel accepted by their peers (260, 0.34)

Significant financial aid is available (229, 0.21)

Quantity of extracurricular activities (154, -0.07)

Bus Transportation* (131, -0.62)

Fine Arts (57, -0.02)

Program Elements Table Fix the “Disgust Me” factors first, and keep improving the “Thrill Me” elements.

Do something with the “Annoy Me” elements, if you can. Find a volunteer for the “Frill Me.”

Not Important to Parents

Done

Wel

l (E

ffec

tivel

y)

Done

Poorl

y (In

effe

ctiv

ely)

Very Important to Parents

60

Differentials

The average importance and effectiveness scores for all program elements, reported in difference, importance, and

effectiveness order.

The table below illustrates the average Importance ratings as compared to the average Effectiveness ratings. The

difference, between 4.56 and 4.00 is (.56) The best schools will have a “Quality Gap” near (.20), and the worst we

have seen so far is (1.10). That doesn’t seem like much, but it’s the difference between a school in the top 10%, and a

school in the bottom 10%.


61


Differential Diagnostics

“Two roads diverged in a wood and I -- I took the one less traveled by, and that has made all the difference.” Robert Frost

“Sometimes the road less traveled is less traveled for a reason.” Jerry Seinfield

“One is sorry one could not have taken both branches of the road. But we were not allotted multiple selves.” Gore Vidal

“If you come to a fork in the road, take it.” Yogi Berra

The fundamental purpose of Differential Diagnostics is to help you

prioritize where to put precious time, money, and energy. This

comes from knowing your areas of effectiveness, including your

outstanding “home runs,” and knowing what is important to your

parents. Within that positive framework, we share quality gaps --

areas to prioritize for improvement.

Keep in mind that the sets of tables that follow represent the same

data, sorted in a different order. Here is an explanation of what

each column heading means.

IMP -- Importance. The average of all answers to the

importance ranking for this particular program element. (“How

important is this element to you?”)

Item -- The program element or experience tested.

EFF -- Effectiveness. The average of all answers to the

importance ranking for this particular program element. (“How

effectively does the school do this?”)

DIFF -- Difference (or Differential). This is the result of

subtracting the average importance score for an item from the

average effectiveness score for the same item. The larger the

number, the more parents value this element’s importance over

your effectiveness in providing it. In other words, the larger the

number, the more problematic it is.

In general, any DIFF score over .50 is a problem, and the worse

DIFF scores are not more than 2 points on a 5 point scale.

zDiff -- The difference of the average importance and

effectiveness for a given item in Standard Deviation units.

We simply determine the Standard Deviation of the averages of all

importance items, and the Standard Deviation of the averages of

all effectiveness items. Then, for each item, we determine the z

score for both the importance, and the effectiveness, and subtract.

This gives you a measure of how important and effective each item

is, compared to all the other items.

You can mentally translate zDiff scores into percentile terms in the

0 to 1 range as 1 point equal to a quality gap of 34 percentile

points. A 2 point zDiff score would be a quality gap of at least 50 points -- it probably is higher. (In other words, a zDiff of 2 would

be analogous to an element with an importance percentile 80, with

an effectiveness percentile of 30.

62

Close Correlates

Which program elements most relates to other program elements in the effectiveness ratings of your parents. This

report tells you that. Note that all these items are HIGHLY CORRELATED to one another.


69


Understanding Close Correlates

Parents, teachers, board members, and current volunteers are asked

to rate the effectiveness and importance of 40 standard program

elements, plus any program elements which you added. The Close

Correlate Report, which is based on effectiveness ratings only, tells

you “which program elements relate to others” in the minds of

parents.

In other words, what is most closely related to “Engaging Teaching”

or “High Behavioral Standards for Students?” This is very helpful for

you in understanding both areas of strengths, and areas of weakness.

As you can imagine, this varies from school to school, denomination

to denomination, although we see patterns. (E.g. “High behavioral

standards for students” often closely relates to “High academic

standards for students.”)

The math itself is Pearson Correlates, which can range from -1.00

(perfect negative correlation) to +1.00, a perfect positive

correlation. Statistically, anything over .60 is considered to be highly

correlated. We report the top ten items over .60 (if there are 10

items) in the PDF reports which follows. The complete list of close

correlates can be found in the Excel final report as well. The Excel

version includes all correlates .60 or above.

70

Academically competent teachers Bible / Religion curriculum Challenging educational curriculumQualifications of teachers 0.86 Christian environment 0.78 High academic standards for students 0.77

Engaging teaching 0.81 Christian character development 0.77 Academically competent teachers 0.70

Students are well-prepared for the next educational level 0.81 Teachers are Christian role models 0.70 Science program 0.66

Christian character development 0.79 Traditional values taught 0.64 Students are well-prepared for the next educational level 0.66

Teachers exhibit care and concern for students 0.79 Academically competent teachers 0.63 Christian character development 0.66

Safe learning environment 0.78 Math program 0.64

Curriculum up-to-date 0.76 Engaging teaching 0.63

Christian environment 0.75 Social studies program 0.60

Head of School provides staff oversight and accountability 0.75

High academic standards for students 0.75

Christian character development Christian environment Communication with constituentsChristian environment 0.84 Christian character development 0.84 Curriculum up-to-date 0.65

Academically competent teachers 0.79 Teachers are Christian role models 0.82 Academically competent teachers 0.65

Teachers are Christian role models 0.78 Bible / Religion curriculum 0.78 Parent / teacher communication 0.63

Bible / Religion curriculum 0.77 Academically competent teachers 0.75 Engaging teaching 0.62

Engaging teaching 0.75 Teachers exhibit care and concern for students 0.69 Christian character development 0.61

Students are well-prepared for the next educational level 0.70 Students are well-prepared for the next educational level 0.68

Teachers exhibit care and concern for students 0.68 Individual attention provided for students 0.66

Curriculum up-to-date 0.68 Traditional values taught 0.65

Qualifications of teachers 0.66 Safe learning environment 0.65

Challenging educational curriculum 0.66 Engaging teaching 0.64

Curriculum up-to-date Discipline enforced consistently Educational objectives are clearAcademically competent teachers 0.76 Academically competent teachers 0.67 Educational vision for the school 0.76

Engaging teaching 0.75 High behavioral standards for students 0.66 Safe learning environment 0.73

Teachers are up-to-date on teaching methodology 0.75 Educational vision for the school 0.65 Facility allows for adequate learning environment 0.73

Qualifications of teachers 0.71 Educational objectives are clear 0.65 Academically competent teachers 0.70

Students are well-prepared for the next educational level 0.70 Safe learning environment 0.65 High academic standards for students 0.67

High academic standards for students 0.69 Traditional values taught 0.64 Engaging teaching 0.66

Christian character development 0.68 Christian character development 0.61 Discipline enforced consistently 0.65

Communication with constituents 0.65 Christian environment 0.61 Curriculum up-to-date 0.65

Educational objectives are clear 0.65 Qualifications of teachers 0.64

Use of technology in instruction 0.63 Financial stability of school 0.63

Educational vision for the school Engaging teaching Facility allows for adequate learning environment

Educational objectives are clear 0.76 Academically competent teachers 0.81 Engaging teaching 0.73

Head of School leadership 0.67 Curriculum up-to-date 0.75 Educational objectives are clear 0.73

Academically competent teachers 0.66 Christian character development 0.75 Academically competent teachers 0.66

Discipline enforced consistently 0.65 Facility allows for adequate learning environment 0.73 Individual attention provided for students 0.66

Safe learning environment 0.64 Teachers exhibit care and concern for students 0.72 Qualifications of teachers 0.66

Financial stability of school 0.64 Qualifications of teachers 0.71 Head of School leadership 0.65

Facility allows for adequate learning environment 0.63 Students are well-prepared for the next educational level 0.71 Head of School provides staff oversight and accountability 0.64

Curriculum up-to-date 0.62 Math program 0.67 Safe learning environment 0.63

High academic standards for students 0.61 Head of School provides staff oversight and accountability 0.66 Parent / teacher communication 0.63

English program 0.66 Educational vision for the school 0.63

Top 10 Correlates by Program Element (Over .60)

71

Financial stability of school High academic standards for students High behavioral standards for studentsAcademically competent teachers 0.65 Students are well-prepared for the next educational level 0.80 Safe learning environment 0.72

Teachers are up-to-date on teaching methodology 0.65 Challenging educational curriculum 0.77 Academically competent teachers 0.69

Use of technology in instruction 0.64 Academically competent teachers 0.75 Discipline enforced consistently 0.66

Qualifications of teachers 0.64 Qualifications of teachers 0.71 Head of School provides staff oversight and accountability 0.66

Head of School provides staff oversight and accountability 0.64 Math program 0.69 Christian character development 0.66

Educational vision for the school 0.64 Safe learning environment 0.69 Teachers are Christian role models 0.65

Educational objectives are clear 0.63 Curriculum up-to-date 0.69 Christian environment 0.64

High academic standards for students 0.62 Teachers are up-to-date on teaching methodology 0.68 Educational objectives are clear 0.63

Curriculum up-to-date 0.62 Educational objectives are clear 0.67 Traditional values taught 0.63

Facility allows for adequate learning environment 0.62 Social studies program 0.65 Engaging teaching 0.62

Individual attention provided for students Individual student differences are accommodated Key life skills are taughtFacility allows for adequate learning environment 0.66 Individual attention provided for students 0.64 Parent / teacher communication 0.65

Christian environment 0.66 School's use of resources 0.60 Traditional values taught 0.64

Academically competent teachers 0.66

Safe learning environment 0.66

Teachers exhibit care and concern for students 0.64

Christian character development 0.64

Engaging teaching 0.64

Individual student differences are accommodated 0.64

Qualifications of teachers 0.63

Educational objectives are clear 0.62

Parent / teacher communication Parent involvement with school Head of School addresses parent concernsTeachers reply to emails in a timely fashion 0.77 Parent / teacher communication 0.66 Head of School leadership 0.76

Qualifications of teachers 0.70 Academically competent teachers 0.73

Academically competent teachers 0.69 Head of School provides staff oversight and accountability 0.68

Head of School provides staff oversight and accountability 0.69 Qualifications of teachers 0.68

Edline updated consistently 0.69 Parent / teacher communication 0.65

Teachers work well with parents 0.67 Safe learning environment 0.65

Teachers respond to phone messages in a timely manner 0.67 Individual attention provided for students 0.62

Safe learning environment 0.66 Students are well-prepared for the next educational level 0.62

Parent involvement with school 0.66 Teachers are up-to-date on teaching methodology 0.62

Head of School addresses parent concerns 0.65 School's use of resources 0.61

Head of School leadership Head of School provides staff oversight and accountability Qualifications of teachersHead of School provides staff oversight and accountability 0.77 Head of School leadership 0.77 Academically competent teachers 0.86

Head of School addresses parent concerns 0.76 Academically competent teachers 0.75 Students are well-prepared for the next educational level 0.77

Academically competent teachers 0.69 Qualifications of teachers 0.70 Safe learning environment 0.75

Educational vision for the school 0.67 Parent / teacher communication 0.69 Teachers exhibit care and concern for students 0.73

Traditional values taught 0.66 Edline updated consistently 0.69 Teachers are up-to-date on teaching methodology 0.72

Facility allows for adequate learning environment 0.65 Students are well-prepared for the next educational level 0.68 High academic standards for students 0.71

Safe learning environment 0.65 Head of School addresses parent concerns 0.68 Engaging teaching 0.71

Qualifications of teachers 0.64 Teachers reply to emails in a timely fashion 0.67 Curriculum up-to-date 0.71

Parent / teacher communication 0.64 Engaging teaching 0.66 Head of School provides staff oversight and accountability 0.70

Teachers reply to emails in a timely fashion 0.63 High behavioral standards for students 0.66 English program 0.70

72

Reasonable tuition Results of standardized tests Safe learning environmentAcademically competent teachers 0.66 Use of technology in instruction 0.63 Academically competent teachers 0.78

Safe learning environment 0.65 Math program 0.62 Qualifications of teachers 0.75

Qualifications of teachers 0.63 Students are well-prepared for the next educational level 0.61 Educational objectives are clear 0.73

English program 0.61 High behavioral standards for students 0.72

Science program 0.61 Students are well-prepared for the next educational level 0.70

Social studies program 0.60 Teachers are Christian role models 0.69

High academic standards for students 0.69

Teachers are up-to-date on teaching methodology 0.67

Parent / teacher communication 0.66

Individual attention provided for students 0.66

School Board oversight School's use of resources Significant financial aid is availableQualifications of teachers 0.63

Head of School addresses parent concerns 0.61

Academically competent teachers 0.61

Individual student differences are accommodated 0.60

Staff is customer service oriented Student admission standards Students are well-prepared for the next educational level

Edline updated consistently 0.65 Financial stability of school 0.62 Academically competent teachers 0.81

Teachers reply to emails in a timely fashion 0.64 Students are well-prepared for the next educational level 0.61 High academic standards for students 0.80

Teachers respond to phone messages in a timely manner 0.62 Staff is customer service oriented 0.61 Qualifications of teachers 0.77

Student admission standards 0.61 Head of School leadership 0.60 Math program 0.71

Engaging teaching 0.71

Safe learning environment 0.70

Christian character development 0.70

Curriculum up-to-date 0.70

Head of School provides staff oversight and accountability 0.68

Teachers are up-to-date on teaching methodology 0.68

Students feel accepted by their peers Teachers are Christian role models Teachers are up-to-date on teaching methodology

Christian environment 0.82 Curriculum up-to-date 0.75

Christian character development 0.78 Qualifications of teachers 0.72

Traditional values taught 0.75 Academically competent teachers 0.70

Teachers exhibit care and concern for students 0.73 Students are well-prepared for the next educational level 0.68

Academically competent teachers 0.72 Use of technology in instruction 0.68

Bible / Religion curriculum 0.70 High academic standards for students 0.68

Safe learning environment 0.69 Safe learning environment 0.67

Qualifications of teachers 0.66 Financial stability of school 0.65

High behavioral standards for students 0.65 English program 0.64

Students are well-prepared for the next educational level 0.65 Engaging teaching 0.62

Teachers exhibit care and concern for students Teachers work well with parents Traditional values taughtAcademically competent teachers 0.79 Teachers reply to emails in a timely fashion 0.69 Teachers are Christian role models 0.75

Teachers are Christian role models 0.73 Parent / teacher communication 0.67 Academically competent teachers 0.71

Qualifications of teachers 0.73 Teachers respond to phone messages in a timely manner 0.67 Teachers exhibit care and concern for students 0.67

Engaging teaching 0.72 Academically competent teachers 0.63 Head of School leadership 0.66

Christian environment 0.69 Qualifications of teachers 0.61 Christian environment 0.65

Christian character development 0.68 Traditional values taught 0.60 Safe learning environment 0.65

Traditional values taught 0.67 Christian character development 0.65

Head of School provides staff oversight and accountability 0.65 Key life skills are taught 0.64

Individual attention provided for students 0.64 Bible / Religion curriculum 0.64

Safe learning environment 0.63 Discipline enforced consistently 0.6473

Use of technology in instruction Edline updated consistently Teachers reply to emails in a timely fashionTeachers are up-to-date on teaching methodology 0.68 Teachers reply to emails in a timely fashion 0.76 Teachers respond to phone messages in a timely manner 0.86

Students are well-prepared for the next educational level 0.65 Academically competent teachers 0.69 Parent / teacher communication 0.77

Financial stability of school 0.64 Head of School provides staff oversight and accountability 0.69 Edline updated consistently 0.76

Academically competent teachers 0.63 Parent / teacher communication 0.69 Academically competent teachers 0.71

Curriculum up-to-date 0.63 Teachers respond to phone messages in a timely manner 0.67 Teachers work well with parents 0.69

Qualifications of teachers 0.63 Staff is customer service oriented 0.65 Qualifications of teachers 0.68

Results of standardized tests 0.63 Qualifications of teachers 0.64 Head of School provides staff oversight and accountability 0.67

Science program 0.62 Students are well-prepared for the next educational level 0.63 Staff is customer service oriented 0.64

Edline updated consistently 0.62 Use of technology in instruction 0.62 Head of School leadership 0.63

Safe learning environment 0.61 Teachers are Christian role models 0.61 Engaging teaching 0.61

Teachers respond to phone messages in a timely manner Math program Science programTeachers reply to emails in a timely fashion 0.86 Science program 0.94 Math program 0.94

Edline updated consistently 0.67 English program 0.90 English program 0.87

Parent / teacher communication 0.67 Social studies program 0.82 Social studies program 0.83

Teachers work well with parents 0.67 Academically competent teachers 0.73 Academically competent teachers 0.70

Academically competent teachers 0.66 Students are well-prepared for the next educational level 0.71 Students are well-prepared for the next educational level 0.67

Qualifications of teachers 0.64 Qualifications of teachers 0.69 Foreign language program 0.67

Staff is customer service oriented 0.62 High academic standards for students 0.69 Challenging educational curriculum 0.66

Foreign language program 0.68 Qualifications of teachers 0.65

Engaging teaching 0.67 Engaging teaching 0.65

Head of School provides staff oversight and accountability 0.65 High academic standards for students 0.64

Social studies program English program Foreign language programEnglish program 0.85 Math program 0.90 Social studies program 0.75

Science program 0.83 Science program 0.87 English program 0.70

Math program 0.82 Social studies program 0.85 Math program 0.68

Foreign language program 0.75 Academically competent teachers 0.71 Quality of extracurricular activities 0.68

Students are well-prepared for the next educational level 0.65 Qualifications of teachers 0.70 Science program 0.67

High academic standards for students 0.65 Foreign language program 0.70 High academic standards for students 0.62

Academically competent teachers 0.65 Students are well-prepared for the next educational level 0.66 Head of School provides staff oversight and accountability 0.61

Head of School provides staff oversight and accountability 0.63 Engaging teaching 0.66

Qualifications of teachers 0.63 High academic standards for students 0.65

Results of standardized tests 0.60 Christian character development 0.65

Quantity of extracurricular activities Quality of extracurricular activities Bus TransportationQuality of extracurricular activities 0.75 Quantity of extracurricular activities 0.75

Athletics 0.68 Foreign language program 0.68

Fine arts 0.62 Athletics 0.66

Science program 0.64

Fine arts 0.61

Athletics Fine artsQuantity of extracurricular activities 0.68 Athletics 0.63

Quality of extracurricular activities 0.66 Quantity of extracurricular activities 0.62

Fine arts 0.63 Quality of extracurricular activities 0.61

74


Appendices

Includes three appendices: (A) What do I do now, (B) Word of Mouth Calendar, Month by Month, (C)

Understanding Promoters, Passives, and Detractors.

75

GraceWorks Ministries For Healthy Christian Schools PSRS 3.0 © 2011-12

What Do I Do Now?

Training Promoters to Promote

Introduction

Word-of-mouth happens. But who makes it happen … and how? Who? The tried and true, and always valid, method to track who makes word of mouth referrals is to ask prospective parents specifically who told them about your school. GraceWorks has augmented this with the new Parent Satisfaction and Referral Survey, which uses Harvard customer loyalty expert Fred Reichheld’s “ultimate question” to simply ask your school constituents if they are willing to refer. Note the word constituents. Most Christian school leaders have to re-calibrate their thinking that who is broader than current parents. Who will typically will include past parents, donors, board, volunteer leaders, and hopefully, teachers and staff. Referral reward systems offering free tuition disconnect from this broader reality, and one other as well. How? The other reality is that most word of mouth referral happens with no external reward whatsoever. That’s good news, for two reasons. First, constituents who are not current parents don’t need one month of free tuition to keep referring. Second, the right kind of rewards will increase your word of mouth effectiveness, because no one else is doing them. In fact, the reason that “free tuition” referral reward systems work (minimally) is because they remind people to make referrals. It’s not so much that your referrers lack motivation – they are motivated. In fact, for intrinsically motivated “true believers”, large monetary (external) reward can actually be de-motivating. (Most educationalists know this, but they think marketing is some sort of alternate universe.) Moreover – if a current parent has concerns with the quality of your school – will offering a month or two of free tuition motivate them to start referring? It’s doubtful. Plus, the other caveat that most schools won’t do anything to thank or reward a referrer until months later, when a prospective parent enrolls or shows up on the first day of school. From a strict word-of-mouth

perspective, such a reward program completely squanders the opportunity to keep your school at the “top of mind” of a referrer. And it begs the question of whose job it is to “close” a new parent. Solving Three Problems Needed to Increase Your Word of Mouth Referral To increase our word of mouth referrals, three problems must be solved. #1: The Top of Mind Problem. First and foremost, we must help our referrers to remember to make referrals. Here the goal is regular, graceful reminders:

(1) Regular thank you notes for good reason, (2) Regular notes for no good reason,

(3) A monthly mailer, (4) Regular “good news” phone calls, or calls just to say “hi” or “thanks”

(5) An occasional lunch, or “drop-by” visits. (6) Once or twice a year “party” with a touch of “referrers training” (below) (7) Emails with good news, helpful resources, or expressions of appreciation. Anything that helps remind a referral source to keep making referrals will help. For example, the next time your secretary is preparing a general mailer, ask her to pull the letters from your promoters. You (or her) can write a personal note on these, something like: “Your continuing referrals of new parents to our school make such an important difference … thank you from the bottom of our heart.” #2: Recognizing When to Refer. It’s easy to make a referral when a new family tells our referrer that “We are looking for a good Christian school … do you know one?” If you think about it, one implication of secularization in America is that this type of family will be increasingly scarce. Instead, we will have families who have not (yet) decided for Christian education, families who have wants and needs that ultimately will be better satisfied at your school then their current situation. There are dozens of situations that qualify – some of which depend on the strengths of your particular school. Here are three examples of conversations you can easily imagine between co-workers or friends at a water cooler or a little league game:

76


“My child is lost in the numbers at his school. I’m so convinced, with a little more individual attention, Johnny could be earning “A’s”, but as it stands now, he had mostly B’s and two C’s. The way we fund public schools just stinks … I hope the Governor’s proposal to reduce class size is passed through the legislature before it’s too late for Johnny.” “The other day Johnny brought home one of his friends from school. I couldn’t believe it, a sixth grader with an ear-ring! And hair down to his shoulder! Johnny didn’t take it very well when I told him that this friend wouldn’t be coming to our house anymore. He openly defied me when I told him he needed better friends – He said “No way – Mom!” I don’t know what to do, I can’t even get a return call from the Guidance office at the school.” “I want my child to be able to engage the world, but boy it sure is getting a little raw at his public school. I couldn’t believe some of the things he told me about from his biology class … and you can’t imagine what they taught in sex education – for fifth graders. I think I’m going to the next school board meeting – this is getting ridiculous!”

Part of GraceWorks’ monthly mailer program is to highlight a problem like this, a problem that is typically solved by a private Christian school. Some of these problems are immediately obvious, such as the benefits of small class size. Others are less obvious, such as the improved college scholarship prospects of most secondary-level Christian schools. We need to train our referrers to open the door – just a crack – for these new families to consider a private Christian school. One systemic ways we can encourage this is to adopt a widely publicized “Educational Success Consultation” model. Here, one or more of the most experienced and educated principals or teachers at your school are willing to provide 75 to 90 minute consultations to practically any family with the sole purpose of solving educational problems any family in your community is having – regardless of whether they are appropriate for, or admitted to, your school. (Note that this powerful idea forces you to rethink the role of your Admissions Director. Unless your Admissions Counselor/Director is

educationally well-qualified, you may put her/him in charge of the word of mouth referral program, as well as coordinating the enrollment process after a new family has reached a “yes” decision. In between the referral and ultimate enrollment, the educationally qualified Principal or Administrator, in this Educational Success Consultation model, guides the “not at all sure about Christian education” family to a “Yes” decision. ) (However … the Principal or Administrator still has significant responsibilities related to Word of Mouth, from phone calls to thank you notes to presence at word of mouth increasing events. On many occasions, there is simply no substitute for the Principal – end of discussion!) #3: Learning How to Make an Effective Referral. The usual way a referral is made is that the referrer suggests to the new family “why don’t you call XYZ school. They’ve been just fabulous for my kids ….” Sometimes the new family does call – often they do not. What you really need is for the referrer to say something like “With what you’ve described, Dr. Jones at XYZ Christian school will be able to help. He has over 30 years of education experience … and I personally think he’s seen it all. He offers a 75 to 90 minute Educational Success Consultation to help families develop effective strategies to solve their children’s educational problems. Would it be OK if I had them call you to set up an appointment with Dr. Jones?” Then, we need the referrer to immediately pick up the phone and call you, giving you the specifics – particularly a phone number. Kindergarten stuff, huh? But we have to teach, remind, even cajole our referrers to take this basic step. Who is “you?” Good question. For larger schools, “you” is probably the Admissions Director. The Admissions Director makes sure that an appointment is promptly set, and that it actually happens. Very likely the Admissions Director is the most trained person to set these appointments. In setting appointments with new families, work levels of authority – if a secretary or Admissions Director cannot get the appointment, have the principal call. (In other words, don’t start with the principal first in setting the appointment – who calls if he is turned down?)

77


Promoter Training Events

What should you do at Promoter Training Events? With the above principles in mind, here are some ideas: (1) Make sure people understand why they are here: “We invited you to this informal get-together because you are someone who is likely to make a referral to our school. Your referrals are the life-blood of this school, and this event is one way for us to express our appreciation. (2) Have the Administrator or Admissions Director briefly explain the importance of world of mouth referrals. Get out the graph that shows that ninety some percent of your new families come from word of mouth referral. Each enrollment is worth $5,000+ to your school – so many of the invitees are more valuable than most of your annual fund donors. (3) Have fun! This would be a great time for an inspirational talk (10 minutes), perhaps by an alum or your Administrator being visionary. Sell the already sold with your success indicators (alumni success stories, a few test scores, “Christian” success indicators. (4) Be sure to put something in their hands that they can read and review later. Remember, whether you get that appointment in the end will largely be decided by what the referrer says – not your magnificent appointment-setting skills. So give your referrers even more ammo. (5) Spend 10 minutes talking about the dynamic of families who need Christian education, but are undecided. What does a family like that look like? If your group is fairly vocal, have them tell stories where this happened … or brainstorm family situations. In other words, help your referrers be alert to situations where your school is a good solution to a problem … what are those problems? (6) Introduce, or remind referrers about, the “Educational Success Consultation” model you are adopting. (Obviously don’t do this until you are ready.) Make sure you are absolutely clear how this is going to work, particularly who the referrer should call. This is also a good time to explain what the difference between a good referral and a bad referral. (A bad referral is the one you don’t know about!)

(7) Do NOT talk about rewards for referrals. Surprise ‘em! (It’s far more rewarding.) Don’t even say that you will be doing events like this in the future – even though you wil1. (8) Remember to incorporate ideas from the Word of Mouth Calendar. For the psychologically astute, you are going to use an intermittent positive reward system with your referrers, which is the most powerful. In other words, keep ‘em guessing whether or not they’ll get a piece of cheese at the tunnel! Concluding Thoughts

One of the basic thoughts for word of mouth effectiveness is we have to ask for it, often -- but not blatantly. That’s why all the subtle activities: the notes, the calls, the events. And in a high tech world, please don’t immediately default to email. If anything, personal notes and phone calls are even more motivational than they were in the past. Finally, it should be clear that we can purposefully increase our word of mouth referrals. In contrast to the usual thinking, there is plenty we can do. Your basic goal should be to increase the shear number of referrals, regardless of the relative percent of referrals compared to other sources. Noble ideals of “balanced promotional strategies” are silly in a world where advertisers barrage the average person with 3,000 promotional messages a day, spending about $850 per person per year for every man, woman and child in the United States. If you had 90 word-of-mouth referrals this year, go for 200 next year, even if that means that 97% of all your new parents come from word of mouth. Let the others waste their money on print ads, branding awareness campaigns, and expensive advertising agencies caught up in the old ways.

78

Word of Mouth Strategies Monthly Calendar

PSRS 3.0

Dan Krause, President GraceWorks Ministries

1802 Chapel Hills Drive, Suite F Colorado Springs, CO 80920-3714

719.278.9600

www.gwmin.com

© 2011-12

79

In Charge

Impacts

Whom / What: Idea Comment Agreed

Assigned

To Date Due

Date

Finished

Administrator Teachers / Staff Story of superior parent / student

service presented monthly At staff training / meetings -- at

least once a month

Secretary / Graphic Artist

Everyone who receives literature

Literature includes the idea to make referral

"Our school thrives with families like yours -- so please tell a friend

about our school."

Secretary Promoters / Warm Leads Monthly mailer GraceWorks is preparing

proposal

Administrator / Teachers / Board Promoters Thank you notes

Administrator / Board Promoters

"How are you doing?" phone calls

WOM Team / Administrator / Volunteers Promoters

"Good news" phone calls to Promoters

Especially Champions need to hear it from you before they read it

Administrator / Board Promoters "Drop by" visits / coffees / lunches Occasional -- 1 per year

Administrator All Constituents Reminder at all group events: please refer to our school

"We are always seeking to serve families like yours -- that's why your referrals are so important."

WOM Team Promoters Pre- or post-event reception

Secretary All Constituents Notebook for educational professional family referrals

Have this widely available -- in the office, and with teachers

Secretary All Constituents Bulletin board for people needing /

selling / buying something Culture of referrals

Secretary Anyone who requests it

Ongoing email announcements for people needing / selling / buying

something Culture of referrals

Administrator / Marketing Team Promoters

If someone gives a testimonial, make sure to get referrals Train everyone to ask

Administrator Teachers / Staff One success story per staff meeting

Reinforce the value and competency of your program

with staff

Administrator Promoters Thank you note immediately after

receiving a testimonial

Ongoing

80

In Charge

Impacts


Assigned

To Date Due

Date

Finished

Administrator All Constituents Testimonial / success story

in every newsletter

Administrator / Principal Champion Promoters Bi-monthly insiders breakfast 1st something of the month

WOM Team Champion Promoters Season pass free to all sports

events A special card of some sort

Administrator / Principal Current Parents

Suggestion boxes in several places

Tie into the "best idea" competition

Administrator / Principal New Parents Nicest possible welcome packet

Sent as soon as possible after family is officially enrolled

WOM Team / IT Promoters Special place for suggestions for

improvement A blog or "email your suggestions"

here

All Staff All Constituents Thank you notes for all thank yous

received Always look for an excuse to say

thanks

Administrator Teachers / Staff Customer (parent) service "mini-lesson" at every staff meeting

Teach both proactive and reactive customer service

strategies

WOM Team Women Constituents / Community at Large

Determine what women's groups have ladies from your school

and determine which to connect better with

Administrator / Principal Champion Promoters

Few friendly listening calls each month

Each Champion should be contacted every three months. Better: All promoters contacted

every three months.

Ongoing (con’t)

81

In Charge

Impacts


Assigned

To Date Due

Date

Finished

Administrator / Principal All literature; Website Gather up credibility indicators

Testimonials, statistics, good news

Administrator Promoters

Here are the changes we made based on the PSRS and

Yearly Parent The most detail goes to your

Champions

WOM Team Champion Promoters Social networks survey

Ask your Champions -- what social groups are you involved

with? Then target these.

June

82

In Charge

Impacts


Assigned

To Date Due

Date

Finished

WOM Team WOM Foundation Determine what action steps will be taken from GraceWorks plan

Administrator / Principal Current Parents

Summary results of Yearly Parental Quality Survey

WOM Team All Constituents T-shirts -- message, design, order Priority to promoters -- they will wear them

July

83

In Charge

Impacts


Assigned

To Date Due

Date

Finished

Administrator / WOM Team Current Parents

Prepare mechanics / questions for listening tour

Or -- formalize the kinds of questions asked before and after

school

WOM Team All Constituents Review literature for "copier"

friendliness Plus "Please refer us" language

WOM Team WOM Foundational

Research Assign internet monitor for blogs,

forums, list groups Technorti, Nielsen Buzz Monitor

WOM Team / Secretary Promoters

Assemble distribution lists -- email and addresses -- for Promoters

Administrator / WOM Team All Constituents Determine WOM messages

What you want people to say -- this is very important.

What would prospective parents find interesting?


Research Assign someone to deal with

"Great Schools"

Too many prospective parents are looking at this -- it has to be right

Administrator / WOM Team All Constituents Free tuition sweepstakes Contest parameters; promotion

WOM Team Promoters Determine WOM point person Who is in charge of monitoring overall strategies and tactics?

Staff Marketing Team Train staff on how to record

WOM referrals

Secretary / Graphic Artist Promoters School business cards

For the school as a whole -- include benefits

WOM / Marketing Team

WOM Foundational Research

Define Persona(s) of ideal customer

Use to determine community experts / opinion leaders

to attract

Administrator / Marketing Team

Anyone who answers the phone Telephone script / training

Lists positives of school, deals with common problems


Research

News junkie assigned to TV news and / or newspaper

looking for WOM angles / ideas

August

84

In Charge

Impacts


Assigned

To Date Due

Date

Finished

Administrator / Principal /

WOM Team Community at Large

(buzz) Determine community group

involvements Be involved selectively --

and significantly


Research SWOT analysis of current

WOM picture Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportu-

nities, Threats

Administrator / Principal New Parents First day of school phone call

Call next day or even the evening of the first day -- was everything OK? Is there anything you were

wondering about?

August (con’t)

85

In Charge

Impacts


Assigned

To Date Due

Date

Finished

Administrator / Marketing Team Current Parents

Administrators structured listening tour

Or -- be available before and after school

WOM Team Community Groups Speakers bureau

WOM Team Promoters Promoters event

Three times per year, September, January, November are good. In December, you might do a very

special Promoters event.

WOM Team Community Identify / determine participation in

community events Such as Educational Fairs

WOM Team Promoters Determine incentives for

best Promoters An automatic gift certificate may

be counter-productive

Marketing Team Promoters

Special brochure that includes blank panel to describe

own experience

Make sure that Promoters understand they are to write in

the blank panel

Administrator Teachers / Staff Identifying / Dealing with negativity How to discover it, deal with it

WOM Team All Constituents Develop a question for a bumper

sticker / t-shirt campaign "What is God's best for your

child?"

IT Department / WOM Team All Constituents

Review printability / reproducibility of web pages Add "email this page to a friend"

Secretary Current Parents Business directory of

current parents

IT / WOM Team All Constituents Hold message with testimonials /

achievement indicators

WOM Team Current Parents or

Students Best suggestion

for improvement contest $1,000 cash award in March

Administrator Current Parents Train staff on rewards for "negative time"

Thank you notes, gift certificate when we ask a parent to do

something purely for our convenience

WOM Team / Enrollment Team Current Parents

Birthday cards -- either physical or spiritual

This would require you to ask this on the enrollment form


(buzz) Determine Christian talk radio

targets And book them

September

86

In Charge

Impacts


Assigned

To Date Due

Date

Finished

WOM Team / Publications Teachers / Staff Business cards for all employees

Or at least all employees have a generic business card for the

school

WOM Team / IT Teachers / Staff

A strictly staff only database or blog discussing parent / student service

issues / concerns -- completely anonymous

A safe way for teachers especially to ask questions / discuss concerns. Administrator / Principal expected to read / comment / train on issues

addressed.

September (con’t)

87

In Charge

Impacts


Assigned

To Date Due

Date

Finished

WOM Team / Administrator Promoters

Parent advisory group of Promoters

Administrator Teachers / Staff Teacher / staff meeting about

word of mouth

At least once a year -- GraceWorks can provide a new

slideshow

Alumni Relations Person Alumni

Follow-up study -- are they still Christian?

80%+ of Christians lose their faith in secular universities

Staff / Administration

Community at Large (buzz)

Determine community leaders who matter for your school

WOM Team / Enrollment Team Promoters

Determine who are your best 25 or so promoters and what special

treatment they will get Essentially, these receive "good

news" first

All All Constituents Revise vision statement to include

WOM priority "To become widely known in ___

as the school that …."

IT Department Current Parents Parents’ blog Moderator is very important

WOM Team Current Parents or

Students $1,000 essay contest: “Why Biblical Values Matter Today”

WOM Team All Constituents Business networking group to

exchange leads Group meets at the school

WOM Team All Students Design a Christmas card contest --

$100 prize Judged / based on originality and creativity -- "out of the box"

October

88

In Charge

Impacts


Assigned

To Date Due

Date

Finished

Principals / Enrollment Staff Prospective Parents

Review enrollment process to speed up the decision cycle

The quicker the entire enrollment process, the more students who

will enroll

Administrator / Enrollment Team New Parents

Page / procedure for asking new parents for a referral

Which is clearly indicated to be optional

Administrator / Marketing Team New Parents

"Thanks for enrolling" packet / reward Sent one week after enrolling

Administration / Staff Current Students / Parents

Special Biblical education book giv-en out at quarterly conference

Administration / Teachers Current Students

Jesus Tattoo Day -- the most Biblical temporary tattoos you can

find This might be too controversial

WOM Team All Constituents Print and send

student designed card At least send to all Promoters

WOM Team / IT Promoters Special __________ Christian

School screen saver This might be hard technically


(buzz) The sharpest Christmas light and display of any school in town

While public schools hardly celebrate Christmas, shine forth with the reason for the season

November

89

In Charge

Impacts


Assigned

To Date Due

Date

Finished

Head of Market-ing Task Force Marketing Task Force

Ask for referrals at the initial meeting with brief training

Administration / Staff Current Students Total surprise day

In December, kids show up &and the entry way has been converted to the Bethlehem stable, with live

animals

WOM Team Professionals in Community Professionals’ referral packet

Appropriate for clergy, learning disability specialists, counselors,

etc.

WOM Team Champion Promoters Champion Promoters

Christmas Party At a home -- Administrator or

board member

December

90

In Charge

Impacts


Assigned

To Date Due

Date

Finished

Current Parents Community at Large

(buzz) Educational expert speaks at a

Parent Forum

WOM Team Promoters Promoters event Or November instead

WOM Team / Administrator Current Parents Letter: please make a referral

This goes with the postcards that can be forwarded. You could use the same mailing with Promoters.

Administrator Current Families Offer family visioneering

conference free for all parents Vision planning / GraceWorks

offers this

WOM Team Current Parents

Free tuition through end of year sweepstakes for randomly drawn family who puts "my child attends __________ Christian school" on their answering machine message Or $1,000 tuition reimbursement

WOM Team Current Parents and

Promoters

Send forwardable postage paid post cards with the Administrators

letter -- refer us to a friend

Preprinted on the front, with room on the back for a personal

note by the sender

WOM Team Current Parents and

Promoters Key ring with _____________

Christian School info Put your mission statement on

the back

January

91

In Charge

Impacts


Assigned

To Date Due

Date

Finished

Administrator Current Parents Re-enrollment form includes

request for referrals Always optional

WOM Team Professionals in Community

Determine which community professionals could make referrals

and visit And visit them. This could start in

January.

February

92

In Charge

Impacts


Assigned

To Date Due

Date

Finished

March

93

In Charge

Impacts


Assigned

To Date Due

Date

Finished

Administrator / Secretary All Constituents

Parent Satisfaction and Referral Survey (PSRS)

Administration / Secretary Current Parents

Booklet -- all your suggestions and what we are doing about them Probably is selective

WOM Team Current Students Student Appreciation Say Do something that students

would really like

April

94

In Charge

Impacts


Assigned

To Date Due

Date

Finished

Marketing Team WOM Foundational

Research Identify great testimonials from

PSRS For everything - literature, web-

site

PSRS / Secretary Promoters Integrate PSRS promoters into

main group Cull / categorize referrers

Administrator / Principal Current Parents Yearly Parental Quality Survey

Administrators Current Parents Ask for referrals for non-detractors on Yearly Parental Quality Survey

Administration / Staff Current Students / Parents

Special Speaker: “God's Best for My Life”

Get a good speaker -- perhaps a Christian radio personality

WOM Team Current Parents Parent Appreciation Day

Perhaps a concert or at least a potluck -- Principals and Ad-ministrator can dress up in tuxe-dos and welcome everyone

May

95

What do Promoters, Passives, and Detractors of your school look like? Here isa compilation of characteristics from Fred Reichheld’s The Ultimate Question:Driving Good Profits and True Growth, Harvard Business Press, 2006, andChris Denove and James D. Power’s Customer Satisfaction: How Every GreatCompany Listens to the Voice of the Customer, Penguin Books, 2006.

The key question for the Powers’ Customer Satisfaction Indicator (CSI) is “Overall, how satisfied are you with …?” Like the Net Promoter Score (NPS®), the CSI question is often asked witha 0 to 10 point scale, with 10 being high. Instead ofPromoters, Passives, and Detractors, J.D. Powersuses Advocates, Apathetics, and Assassins.

Scoring is slightly different, but the concepts arevery similar.

© 2007www.graceworksministries.org

719.278.9600

Understanding Promoters, Passives, and Detractorswith JD Powers Customer Satisfaction Index (CSI) Equivalents

Degree of Loyaltyor Satisfaction Created by Characteristics

NPS®Promoter

(9, 10)

CSIAdvocate (8,9,10)

Schools that exceedparent expectationswith consistentexperiences of “wow”

Fiercely loyal to you, will suffer inconvenience to work with you,proselytizers -- actively sharing the “good news” of your school with others, will pay a premium for tuition; tend to help otherschool families, actively involved in volunteer activities. Ifunchurched, would consider joining your sponsoring church. Willconsider outright philanthropic gifts to your school.

NPS®Passive

(7, 8)

CSIApathetic (5,6,7)

Schools that meetparent expectations --no major problems,but no “wow” either

Will not tolerate large inconveniences, might pursue an ad or anemail from a competing school; tend not to talk about your schooleither way, tend to approach your school as a consumer, moreprice sensitive. Tend to not volunteer or be involved in the life ofyour school. If unchurched, will usually not consider joining yoursponsoring church.

NPS®Detractor

(0-6 andno response)

CSIAssassin(0-4 and

no response)

Parent feels a promisewas broken, acommitment wasunfulfilled, and hasmajor problems withyour school

Actively seeking out other schools -- and are actively encouragingothers not to do business with you. According to JD Powersresearch, 50% more likely to tell someone the bad news of yourschool, compared to advocates telling you something good. Theyare much more likely to be complaining to the principal frequently.

96

According to JD Powers and Associates research, the largest group ofcustomers for most industries is the middle group, Passive and Apathetic --often by ratios of 5 to 1. The most cost-effective way to generate word ofmouth referrals is to develop strategies to move this group into the top group,Promoters and Advocates.

This requires finding ways to consistently exceed the ever-rising expectations ofyour parents.

Note that JD Powers will assess a service business, such as a school, with threebasic types of questions: (1) overall service quality, (2) subjective experience ofreceiving the service (ie. the “niceness factor”), and (3) satisfaction with the process of deciding to have the service in the first place (ie. your enrollmentprocess).

Translated for a Christian school, you could ask: Overall, how satisfied wereyou with …

• the quality of the education your child received?• your subjective experience of educating your child here?• the process by which you decided to enroll your child at our

school?

© 2007www.graceworksministries.org

719.278.9600 97

standard 3 final evidence

Documents

day rotation schedule

period day schedule

special schedule classes

progress reportgrades

school night

staff professional development

noon dismissal

x veterans assembly