Employee Engagement December 4, Board of Education

Transcription

1 Employee Engagement December 4, Board of Education

2 Employee Engagement Survey Results and Analysis Rockford Public Schools School Year: -2019

3 Project Overview Engagement is the connection that individuals have with their profession in general and their current jobs in particular. Several factors can affect an employee s engagement, including relationships with supervisors and administrators, colleagues, students, and parents; the physical work environment; personal safety; policy considerations and implementation; support for professional development and growth; preparation; perceptions of personal relevance; and general satisfaction. The Rockford Public Schools 205 Employee Engagement Survey was open Sept. 26 Oct. 10. The survey s goals were to: Measure the level of engagement of Rockford Public Schools 205 employees Classify employees as highly engaged, engaged, or less engaged Identify areas where employee engagement can be improved invitations with unique survey links were sent to employees. Reminders were sent Oct. 2, 5, 8, and 10. This report summarizes survey results and breaks them down by school year, years of service, and role. 3

4 Understanding the Results Responses to the first nine items were averaged to find an engagement score for each respondent. The five response options were: Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neither Disagree nor Agree, Agree, and Strongly Agree. To calculate the engagement score, each response option was given a weight, ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). Results do not reflect random sampling; therefore, they should not be generalized to all Rockford Public Schools 205 employees. Rather, results reflect only the perceptions and opinions of survey participants. Findings for each item in the report exclude participants who did not answer. Data labels less than 5 percent are not shown in charts and graphs. Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding. 4

5 Study Design The Employee Engagement Survey consists of three parts: Overall Engagement is composed of nine items that are designed to measure each employee s level of engagement. Based on the average of the responses to these items, an engagement score is calculated for each survey participant. Engagement scores are classified as less engaged (<3.5), engaged (3.5 to 4.5) or highly engaged (>4.5). Engagement Drivers are items about different aspects of the work environment that may affect engagement. Participants answered each item using the 5-point Likert scale. Engagement drivers are organized into six dimensions: Shared values Leadership Communication Feedback and recognition Work environment Career growth and training opportunities Demographic Questions provide information about participants, such as school, department, and job classification. 5

6 Participation

7 Participation 7 School Year Number of Invitations Delivered (NMax) Number of Responses (N) Response Rate (%) Total Responses ,997 2,333 58% 2, ,959 2,260 57% 2,260 * Certified staff includes psychologist, social worker, speech and language pathologist, nurse, OT, PT, sign language interpreter, coach, and specialist positions.

8 Overall Engagement

9 Calculating and Classifying Engagement Scores Each participant s engagement score is the average of their responses to nine engagement questions (EQ). Those average scores are then classified on a scale of highly engaged (>4.5), engaged (3.5 to 4.5), and less engaged (<3.5). 9

10 Overall Engagement Responses to the nine engagement items were averaged to calculate an engagement score for each participant. To calculate the engagement score, each response option was assigned a numerical value: Strongly Disagree = 1 Disagree = 2 Neither Disagree or Agree = 3 Agree = 4 Strongly Agree = 5 Average scores were classified into three levels: Less Engaged (<3.5), Engaged (3.5 to 4.5), and Highly Engaged (>4.5). 10

11 Overall Engagement: Comparison Over Time How strongly do you disagree or agree with the following statements? 11

12 Overall Engagement: Comparison Over Time (Continued) How strongly do you disagree or agree with the following statements? 12

13 Engagement Drivers

14 Shared Values: Comparison Over Time How strongly do you disagree or agree with the following statements? 14

15 Shared Values: Comparison Over Time (Continued) How strongly do you disagree or agree with the following statements? 15

16 Leadership: Comparison Over Time How strongly do you disagree or agree with the following statements? 16

17 Leadership: Comparison Over Time (Continued) How strongly do you disagree or agree with the following statements? 17

18 Communication: Comparison Over Time How strongly do you disagree or agree with the following statements? 18

19 Feedback and Recognition: Comparison Over Time How strongly do you disagree or agree with the following statements? 19

20 Work Environment: Comparison Over Time How strongly do you disagree or agree with the following statements? 20

21 Work Environment: Comparison Over Time (Continued) How strongly do you disagree or agree with the following statements? 21

22 Career Growth and Training Opportunities: Comparison Over Time How strongly do you disagree or agree with the following statements? 22

23 Focus Areas

24 Focus Areas to Increase Employee Engagement Forty-nine items (drivers) were used to assess the school/workplace environment and identify opportunities to increase engagement. Each item was rated on a five-point scale, with higher values indicating stronger agreement. The relationship between each employee s responses (driver ratings) and his or her overall engagement score was also analyzed. To do this, the strength of the relationship (the correlation coefficient) between the engagement scores and each driver was calculated. Values can range from -1.0 to The closer to +/-1.0, the stronger the relationship. Driver ratings were classified as high or low based on the median. Correlations to engagement were classified as strong or weak based on the median. The primary focus area (yellow) is for Items that rated low but have a strong correlation to engagement. The secondary focus area (green) is for items that received high ratings and have a strong correlation to engagement. 24

25 Engagement Driver Dimensions Calculations 25

26 Areas of Strength Celebrating these items will promote positive employee engagement. The average scores for these statements are high (at or above 3.66), and the items have strong relationships to engagement. 26 Note: Items in bold appeared on this slide last school year.

27 Areas of Strength (Continued) Celebrating these items will promote positive employee engagement. The average scores for these statements are high (at or above 3.66), and the items have strong relationships to engagement. 27 Note: Items in bold appeared on this slide last school year.

28 Opportunities for Improvement Improving scores for these items will likely increase employee engagement. The average scores for these statements are low (at or below 3.66), but the items have strong relationships to engagement. Dimension Survey Item Driver Rating Correlation to Engagement Work Environment There is high staff morale in this district Leadership District leaders ensure staff morale is high Leadership District leaders understand my professional needs Feedback and Recognition Rockford Public Schools 205 recognizes employees for their high-quality work and accomplishments Leadership District leaders actions are consistent with their words Feedback and Recognition I receive recognition for my accomplishments Work Environment There is high staff morale in my school or department Note: Items in bold appeared on this slide last school year.

29 Opportunities for Improvement (Continued) Improving scores for these items will likely increase employee engagement. The average scores for these statements are low (at or below 3.66), but the items have strong relationships to engagement. Dimension Survey Item Driver Rating Correlation to Engagement Shared Values I can provide input on how the district accomplishes its mission Shared Values I can help shape the district s mission and vision Shared Values District leaders encourage employees to share ideas to improve performance Feedback and Recognition I feel appreciated for my work Shared Values The district is moving in a direction that reflects our mission and vision Leadership My principal or direct supervisor ensures staff morale is high in my school or department Communication I can influence decisions in my school or department Note: Items in bold appeared on this slide last school year.

30 Secondary Areas of Strength While these items do not have strong relationships to engagement, the average scores for these statements are high (at or above 3.66). The district should continue its good work in these areas. 30

31 Secondary Areas of Strength (Continued) While these items do not have strong relationships to engagement, the average scores for these statements are high (at or above 3.66). The district should continue its good work in these areas. 31

32 Improving the Work Environment While these items do not have strong relationships to engagement, the average scores for these statements are low (at or below 3.66). Improving these items will promote a positive work environment. 32

33 Improving the Work Environment (Continued) While these items do not have strong relationships to engagement, the average scores for these statements are low (at or below 3.66). Improving these items will promote a positive work environment. 33

34 Engagement by Demographics

35 Engagement by Years of Service 35

36 Engagement by Role: Comparison Over Time 36 * Certified staff includes psychologist, social worker, speech and language pathologist, nurse, OT, PT, sign language interpreter, coach, and specialist positions.

37 Additional Questions

38 Principal: Comparison Over Time How strongly do you disagree or agree with the following statements? 38 Note: Only classroom teachers and certified staff members answered these questions.

39 Collaboration and Input: Comparison Over Time How strongly do you disagree or agree with the following statements? 39 Note: Only classroom teachers and certified staff members answered these questions.

40 Additional Topics: Comparison Over Time How strongly do you disagree or agree with the following statements? 40 Note: Only classroom teachers and certified staff members answered these questions.

41 Cell Phone Usage What type of impact does student cell phone usage have on student engagement? (N=1,600) 41 Note: Only classroom teachers and certified staff members answered these questions.

42 Positive Trends I feel appreciated for my work 58% I work in an The district encourages atmosphere where continued education there is mutual respect and professional among staff growth 70% 76% () () () 54% 66% 72% (2017) (2017) (2017) 42

43 Positive Trends District staff and school employees communicate well with each other 37% My PLC is a valuable use of time (response limited to teachers & certified staff) 52% () () 33% 48% (2017) (2017) 43

44 Opportunities for Improvement % of Building Administrators who are engaged or highly engaged I am proud to work at this school 89% 85% (2017) (2017) 82% 82% () () 44

45 2017--Engaged/Highly Engaged All Staff Years in District 73% 77% (2017 & ) (2017) 69% () 45

46 Net Promoter Score (NPS) The net promoter score serves as a proxy for public confidence in the school and can potentially be connected to district growth. Questions from the Survey: How likely are you to recommend Rockford Public Schools 205 to a friend or colleague? How likely are you to recommend (school name) to a friend or colleague? The scale: 0 (anchored as not at all likely) to 10 (anchored as extremely likely) 0-6 are considered detractors 7-8 are considered passives 9-10 are considered promoters 46

47 Net Promoter Score (NPS) It is calculated by subtracting the percentage of detractors from promoters, which gives a value between -100 to A positive score means there are more people promoting the school than detracting from it. For this survey: School NPS: 8 School NPS Range: +87 to -80 District NPS Range: +16 to -76 District NPS: -29

48 Net Promoter Score (NPS) 48

49

50 District Strategic Goals- Climate & Culture Engagement Engagement Survey Results-Percentage of staff that are engaged or highly engaged. Strategic Goal: Match or exceed national standards for identified school level for similar sized districts 50

51 Employee Engagement Continuous Improvement Cycle Conduct Survey Progress Monitor October March-May Employee Engagement Action Plan Analyze Results November-February November Identify Opportunities for Growth (OFI) November 5 1

52 Employee Engagement Survey Timeline Survey Window Sept. 26- October 10 Principal Training Making Feedback Matter November 6, 14, & 20 District-Wide Action Planning Progress Update Follow Up School Survey* November-January November 5 Nov 6 & Dec 4 Survey Results Distributed to Schools BOE Results Presentations * K12 Insight Overall Engagement Scale (12 Question Survey) March 6-20 January 23 Action Plan Process Update 5 2

53 Employee Engagement Results Timeline NOVEMBER 5-Cabinet 6- BOE at CoW 6-Elementary Principals 12-Cabinet 14-MS Principals 16-Instructional Council 19- Downtown Leadership Club 19-Downtown Leadership Team 20-HS Principals DECEMBER Action Plan Review 3-Cabinet 4-BOE at CoW TBD-REA Executive Board Jan 23-All Principal's Meeting All Departments Action Plan June 4 BOE CoW March 6-20 School 2nd Survey April 24- All principal meeting 5 3

54 2017 Identified Opportunities for Improvement District Leaders Understand my Professional Needs District Leaders Actions are Consistent with Their Words District Leaders Encourage Employees to Share Ideas to Improve Performance 33% 40% 57% () () () 32% 37% 56% (2017) (2017) (2017) 54

55 -19 District Focus District leaders understand my professional needs 33% District leaders actions are consistent with their words 40% () () 32% 37% (2017) Net Promoter Score: What can we do to increase the internal confidence of RPS205? School NPS: 8 District NPS: -29 (2017) 55

56 1 u 2 i 3 4 e Su un eet lop ivel y ifi ing m pp ed s en pla or m to t a n p es en nd rin t sa su cip ge re al a in ci Co pa de lle l m v ct t o ssi vo pp on ice or al in t Pr unitie s De ofe ve ss In c p lo io re de lann as pm na ve in e t l lo g p ea pm r ch en t en ofe er Pr on Co c n Pl de ycle tinu an pa fo ou ni rtm r s s i m c ng en ho p r ts ol ov s a em nd en t ct nd Fo in st cu g co ude s o ns nt n N ist re e en su t P t w lts ro ith & mo wo act ter rd ion, s s A Ro -19 District Action Plan 56

57 Employee Engagement Survey Timeline Survey Window Sept. 26- October 10 Principal Training Making Feedback Matter November 6, 14, & 20 District-Wide Action Planning Progress Update Follow Up School Survey* November-January November 5 Nov 6 & Dec 4 Survey Results Distributed to Schools BOE Results Presentations * K12 Insight Overall Engagement Scale (12 Question Survey) March 6-20 January 23 Action Plan Process Update 5 7

58