Submitted to:
Oyster River School District
36 Coe Drive
Durham, NH 03824
Submitted By:
Jonathan Geigengack
Project Director
RKM Research and Communications
June 23, 1998
RKM Research and Communications
The results of this report are based on a telephone survey commissioned by Oyster River School District. The survey was administered by RKM Research and Communications, June 10 - 12, 1998. A random probabilistic technique was used to select respondents. The sample of telephone numbers was selected from a complete list of households in the towns of Durham, Lee, and Madbury. A constant was added for the selected numbers to ensure that the sample included listed and unlisted households.
The survey was administered using a computer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI) system. The CATI system allows data to be entered directly into a computerized database as interviews are conducted, providing a highly reliable system of data collection. A central polling facility in Portsmouth, New Hampshire was used to administer the survey. All interviews were conducted by paid, trained and professionally supervised interviewers.
Screening questions were asked at the beginning of the survey to eliminate ineligible respondents. Respondents who said they did not live in Durham, Lee, or Madbury (N=27), said they were not registered to vote (N=46), or who did not vote in the last election (N=119) were not included in the final sample. Respondents who did not vote, but said that they typically vote in most school board votes were asked additional questions, but were not included in the final sample of 303 voters.
Our survey results showed that 55.4 percent of residents cast their votes in favor of Bond 1, compared with 52.7 percent who voted for it in the actual election (a 2.7 point difference). In regards to Bond 2, our survey results indicated that 41.6 percent voted in favor, compared with 42.7 percent in the actual election (a 1.1 point difference). Both variances are well within the calculated margin of error, and vary in opposite directions from the actual results.
The survey is based on complete and useable interviews with 303 residents of Durham, Lee and Madbury who voted on the Oyster River High School renovation bonds on March 10, 1998. The maximum margin of error for the survey of 303 school district residents is +/- 5.6 percent. That means, in theory, in 19 times out of 20, the results found in the sample will differ by no more than plus or minus 5.6 percentage points in either direction from what would be obtained by interviewing all registered voters from Durham, Lee and Madbury who voted in the March 10 election.
In addition to sampling error, the practical difficulties of conducting any survey of public opinion will introduce other sources of error into the poll.
The results presented in this report include univariate and bivariate analyses of the data. Frequency distributions for each item included on the questionnaire are shown in the tables. In all cases, crosstabulation results are also shown. This type of bivariate analysis examines differences between subgroups of the overall population.
In cases where crosstabulation results are presented, a chi-square test, an independent t-test for means, or a Z-test for independent percentages is shown. A chi-square test is used in cases where comparisons are made for categorical variables. A t-test is used in cases where comparisons are made for measurement variables. A Z-test is used in cases where comparisons are made between independent population percentages.
The purpose of these statistical tests is to determine whether or not the observed difference between subgroups in the sample is due to sampling error or whether it is due to a real difference in the population. When the results are statistically significant, it strongly suggests that the observed difference between subgroups found in the sample is due to a real difference in the population, and not due to sampling error.
A chi-square significance level of .05 indicates significance at the 95 percent level. In other words, it is 95 percent likely that the results are due to a real difference between comparison subgroups. A chi-square significance level of .01 indicates significance at the 99 percent level. When a t-test or a Z-test is shown, lower- and upper-case letters indicate significance at the 90 and 95 percent levels respectively.
This section of the report examines characteristics of people who voted for or against the bonds on March 10.
More than one-half (55%) of respondents said that they voted for the first bond, $12.75 million for renovations of the high school. Thirty-nine percent said that they remembered voting against it.
Five percent of respondents said that they were unsure how they voted, or had no answer. Given the actual percentages of people who voted for and against the bond in the election, it is likely that many people who were unsure or refused to answer the question actually voted against the bond.
If only parents had turned out on election day, Bond 1 would have passed. Seventy-one percent of respondents with children voted for the bond, compared to only 39 percent of those without children under 18 in their household.
Among residents who voted for Bond 1, 68 percent said they would still have voted for it if it included $2.8 million more for a 500-seat auditorium. Twenty-four percent said that if Bond 1 had included $2.8 million more for an auditorium, they would have voted against it.
Again, residents with children were more likely to say they would still have voted for Bond 1 if it included an auditorium (76%) than other respondents.
Respondents who voted yes on Bond 1 were also asked whether they would still have voted yes if the bond also included funds for an 850-900 seat auditorium. Since the exact cost of such an auditorium is not known, one-half of respondents were told the auditorium would cost $4 million, and one-half were told it would cost $5 million.
Among respondents who voted yes on Bond 1, 40 percent said that they would still have voted for the bond if it included additional funds for an 850-900 seat auditorium. Thirty-eight percent said that they would have voted against the bond if it included funds for such an auditorium. Twenty-two percent were unsure, or gave no answer.
Assuming that those who voted against Bond 1 would not have supported an expanded plan if it had been presented, combining the two bonds would have received even less support. If asked to approve $12.75 million for renovations and $2.8 million for a 500-seat auditorium, only 38 percent of all voters would have voted yes. And if asked to approve the $12.75 million bond, plus a $4 million bond for a new auditorium, only 22 percent would have voted yes.
Forty-two percent of respondents said that they voted for Bond 2, while 49 percent said they voted against it. One percent did not vote on this bond proposal, and 8 percent were unsure or gave no answer. As with Bond 1, these voters are assumed to have voted no.
Again, respondents with children were much more likely to have voted for this bond (55%) than those without children (27%).
Respondents who voted in favor of Bond 2 were asked if they would still have voted for the proposal if it had been for an 850-900 seat auditorium. Since the exact price of such an auditorium was not known, one-half of respondents were told the cost would be $4 million, and one-half were told the cost would be $5 million.
Among those who voted in favor of Bond 2, 50 percent said that they would still have voted in favor of this larger auditorium. Twenty-nine percent said that they would vote against the larger auditorium, and 21 percent were unsure.
The difference in support for the $4 million proposal (54%) and the $5 million proposal (46%) is not statistically significant.
Over three-quarters of respondents (77%) voted either yes or no across the board on both proposals. Forty percent voted against both Bond 1 and Bond 2, while 37 percent voted in favor of both Bond 1 and Bond 2.
Nineteen percent of respondents voted for Bond 1, but against Bond 2. Only 5 percent of respondents voted for Bond 2, but against Bond 1.
The fact that such a large percentage of respondents were either for or against both bonds, and that few voters were split between them, indicates that opposition and support of the bonds occurred at a more general level.
Respondents were asked whether they felt that the proposed bonds exceeded the educational needs of the community, fell short, or were just right. Overall, 25 percent of respondents felt that the proposed bonds were not enough, 28 percent felt they went too far, and 31 percent said they were just right.
It is interesting to note that:
These results indicate that there is a correlation between how residents perceive the scope of the bonds, and how they subsequently voted. It appears that a reason the bonds were defeated is that many residents perceive them to be beyond more than what the community needs.
This section of the report describes the attitudes of residents toward the school board and school district, and how these attitudes affected the outcome of the vote.
Respondents were asked to rate their satisfaction with the job that the Oyster River School Board does serving the educational needs of the community.
Fifteen percent said that they were very satisfied, and 33 percent said they were somewhat satisfied. However, a significant group of voters expressed dissatisfaction with the school board; in fact, thirty-four percent were either somewhat or very dissatisfied. Seventeen percent had no opinion one way or the other.
Respondents who disapproved of the method by which the architect was selected, and respondents who disapproved of the method by which the construction manager was chosen, were both more likely to be dissatisfied with the performance of the school board.
Nearly two-thirds of respondents (62%) said that they were either somewhat or very satisfied with the quality of education services provided by the Oyster River School District. Twenty-one percent were dissatisfied, and 13 percent had no opinion one way or the other.
Respondents were asked whether they approved or disapproved of the way that the school board selected the architect who designed the renovations. Thirty-four percent said they disapproved, and 12 percent said they approved. Forty-nine percent said that they did not know enough to have an opinion.
Even among those who were generally satisfied with the ORSB, only 12 percent approved of the way the architect had been selected.
Nine percent of respondents said that they approved of the way that the school board selected the construction manager, while 26 percent said that they disapproved. More than one-half (60%) said that they had no opinion one way or the other.
Respondents tended to either approve or disapprove of both the construction manager and the architect. Very few respondents tended to approve of one, but not the other.
Respondents were asked to rate their satisfaction with that the Oyster River School District and the Oyster River School Board do in meeting the educational needs of the community. The results of the survey indicate a direct correlation between respondents' levels of satisfaction with the school district and school board, and whether they voted for or against the first bond.
These results indicate that, as suspected, the controversy over selection of the construction company and architect did influence the outcome of the vote.
As with Bond 1, the results of the survey indicate a direct correlation between respondents' levels of satisfaction with the school district and school board, and whether they voted for or against the second bond.
Again, these results seem to confirm suspicions that the controversy over selection of the construction company and architect did influence the outcome of the vote.
This section of the report describes which parts of the bond proposal voters were most likely to be in favor of, and which they were most likely to oppose. It also describes the likelihood that voters would vote for or against different packages in the future.
Respondents were asked to indicate how they would vote on each of six hypothetical bond packages:
Fifty-four percent of respondents said that they would definitely vote for a $4 million bond to renovate the existing infrastructure in the high school, and another 19 percent said that they would probably vote for such a bond. Only 13 percent said that they would vote against this bond, and 15 percent were unsure.
It is interesting to note that:
Overall, 68 percent of respondents said that they would either definitely or probably vote for a $5 million bond to construct new classrooms. Fifteen percent would vote against it, and 18 percent were unsure.
Only 36 percent of all respondents said that they would vote for a $3 million bond to construct a new gymnasium.
Respondents were asked how they would be likely to vote on two hypothetical bonds to build a new auditorium at the high school.
Forty-two percent said that they would probably or definitely vote for a $2.8 million bond proposal to build a 500 seat auditorium, and 46 percent said that they would vote against it. Thirteen percent were unsure.
Support is low for a $4 to $5 million bond to construct an 850-900 seat auditorium. Overall, 56 percent of respondents said that they would vote against this bond. Even among respondents who voted in favor of Bond 2 ($2.8 million for a 500 seat auditorium), only one-half said that they would still vote for the larger auditorium.
Respondents were asked to indicate how they would vote on three hypothetical bond packages that bundled multiple projects into a single bond proposal:
Overall, 57 percent of respondents said that they would vote in favor of this package. Twenty-seven percent said that they would vote against it, and 17 percent were unsure. Among those who did not voted against Bond 1, 32 percent said that they would vote in favor of this package. Among those who voted against Bond 2, 42 percent said that they would vote in favor of this package.
Overall, 39 percent of respondents said that they would vote in favor of this package. Fourteen percent were unsure, and 48 percent said that they would vote against it. (It is useful to note that the group who said they would definitely vote against this far outnumbered those who said they probably would, indicating that those who are against this package tend to feel particularly strongly about it).
Very few respondents who voted against Bond 1 and/or Bond 2 supported this package.
Overall, 20 percent of respondents said that they would support construction of a new high school. Seventeen percent said that they would probably vote against it, and 45 percent said that they would definitely vote against it. It is interesting to note that even among respondents with children, 58 percent said they would vote against this bond.
This part of the report describes the sources from which voters get their information about educational issues and school issues.
Respondents were asked whether they thought enrollment at Oyster River High School would increase, decrease, or stay the same over the next few years. Eighty percent of respondents said that they thought it would increase; only 3 percent thought it would decrease, and 7 percent thought it would stay about the same. Eleven percent were unsure.
Sixty-two percent of respondents think that, in ten years, there will be more students at Oyster River High School than there are now. Only 4 percent think that there will be fewer students in ten years, and 16 percent think there will be about the same number. Eighteen percent were unsure.
Seventy-three percent of respondents said that it is very important for the Oyster River High School to be accredited by the New England Association of Schools and Colleges. Another 15 percent think it is somewhat important. Fewer respondents felt that accreditation was not important (7%), or were not familiar with accreditation (4%).
The overwhelming majority (89%) were aware that the Oyster River High School had received a warning from the NEASC based on its physical facilities. It is interesting to note that, although awareness of this warning was highest among respondents with children (95%), the great majority (82%) of respondents without children were also aware of the NEASC warning.
More than two-thirds (68%) of respondents said that they follow education issues in the community either extremely closely or very closely. Twenty-nine percent of respondents said that they follow education issues only somewhat closely, and three percent said they do not follow these issues very closely.
Respondents were asked to name all the sources from which they obtain information on educational issues. Foster's Daily Democrat was the most popular source, mentioned by 63 percent of respondents.
Other common sources of information were the SPAN Newsletter (36%), friends and neighbors (36%), and the Tri-Town Transcript (20%). Fewer respondents mentioned CDORE (16%), the PASS Newsletter (12%), and the Portsmouth Herald (10%).
As expected, respondents with children were more likely to mention the School PTO (19%) or PASS newsletter (16%) than respondents without children. Respondents without children were more likely to mention CDORE (21%) as a source of information.
Eighty percent of respondents said that they read some or all of the SPAN newsletter. More than two-thirds of respondents (69%) said that they read some or all of the newsletter that was circulated by PASS, and sixty-five percent said that they read some or all of the newsletter circulated by CDORE (Citizens for Democracy in Oyster River Education).
This section of the report summarizes the findings of the survey, identifies the major reasons why the bonds were voted down, and identifies which hypothetical components would be most likely to pass in a future vote.
Only one in three voters (31%) thought that the proposals were appropriate to meet the educational needs of the community. Most voters thought that the bonds either went too far (28%), or did not go far enough (25%).
Many votes were lost because of this difference in scope:
The problem in the scope of the bonds is further borne out by the reasons given for voting against them. The single most common reason given for voting against either bond was that it was too expensive.
Many respondents also gave some other reason for voting against a bond; this category contained many answers that bear directly on the scope of the bond proposals. The following is a list of selected open-ended comments:
Many of the people who voted against these proposals could be converted if revised bond proposals that better identify with the perceived needs of the community can be offered.
Over one-half (51%) of respondents are not satisfied (i.e., are dissatisfied or are neutral) with the school board. Based on the results of the survey, this dissatisfaction had a direct effect on the outcome of the vote.
Fifty-six percent of those respondents who were dissatisfied with the school board voted against Bond 1, as did 56 percent of those who were neutral. Sixty-two percent of those who were dissatisfied with the school board voted against Bond 2, as did 52 percent of those with no opinion.
The effect of this dissatisfaction can also be seen in responses to the question of why voters were opposed to the bonds. Following is a list of selected comments:
Overall, these dissatisfied voters account for a significant portion of all the people who voted against the bond, and are an important reason that the bonds did not pass.
Finally, many respondents were dissatisfied with the selection of the architect and the construction company. Those respondents who were dissatisfied with the selection of the architect were likely to vote against both Bond 1 (52%) and Bond 2 (62%). Those who disapproved of the construction manager were also more likely to vote against Bond 1 (59%) and Bond 2 (59%).
Many respondents who voted against the bonds included the architect or construction company as part of the reason they did so. For example:
Based on these results, it is clear that these factors had an effect on the failure of the bond proposals.
According to the results of the survey, the following two hypothetical bond proposals would pass:
The following bond proposals would all fail:
These results indicate that voters are largely interested in funds to fulfill what are perceived as the Anecessities@ of the school, like classrooms and infrastructure. Both bonds of this nature Apassed@ among the survey respondents. The $10 million package that incorporated all renovations of this basic Anature@ fell only 9 points short of passing. Furthermore, in the actual vote on March 10th, very few voters (5%) voted against the changes to the infrastructure and classrooms (Bond 1), but in favor of the auditorium (Bond 2). However, three times as many (15 %) voted against the auditorium and in favor of the infrastructure and classroom changes.
This support for basic renovations makes sense, particularly since 88 percent of respondents say that Oyster River's accreditation by the NEASC is important, and that 89 percent are aware that the school has received a warning based on deficiencies in its physical plant. The open ended answers further underscore support of the basic renovations, but reluctance to pay for changes that are perceived as "luxuries":
You are visitor number since July 1998.
Commons
Schools
Newsstand
Library
Voting Booth
Soapbox
Last update on 29-Mar-99 at 10:59 PM.
http://www.orol.org/schools/orhs/orgs/cac/rkm_report.html
This page is edited by David K. Taylor. Please send questions or comments to editor@orol.org.