Customer Feedback - How are we doing?

This report provides a high level overview of survey data collected during engagements between July 2021 and February 2022.

Because several of the groups were small, I concatenated a few submitter roles into larger groups. Specifically, I merged teachers and teachers leaders, assistant principals and instructional coaches, and district leader/CMO leader and superintendent/CMO executive director.

Likert Survey Data

While the majority of the data is extremely positive, teachers were less likely to respond as affirmatively as others on nearly all questions. The graphs below provide an overview of each question by survey type and submitter group, when it made sense to plot it as such:

An a note, an Instructional Coach from School 103 who completed a virtual professional development session on 9/1/2021 completed a different set of survey questions from everyone else who completed professional development sessions. As a single outlier that appears to be an error, I did not include the data in the analysis. In addition, I also removed a principal from District/Network 4, who participated in Action Planning on November 9, 2021, for the same reason.

Additional Analysis

There is a weak association between the team, facilitator, delivery method and question 10 (“Likely to recommend Instructional Partners”) and a medium association between the submitter’s role and their answer to question 10. A more in depth statistical analysis may return interesting results, however this is outside of the scope of this report.

Team Averages for Q10 (Likely to recommend Instructional Partners)
Team Team_Mean_Q10 N_Responses_Q10
1 8.82 410
2 8.33 329
3 8.19 365
4 8.93 1296
5 8.20 76
6 8.73 22
7 9.08 24
8 2.00 1
9 8.54 249
NA 8.12 8

Looking more closely at Q10, the overall mean is 8.68. The table above provides an overview of the mean score on Q10 for each team, along with the associated n. 

## 
##  Paired t-test
## 
## data:  data$Q10 and data$Team
## t = 92.36, df = 2771, p-value < 2.2e-16
## alternative hypothesis: true mean difference is not equal to 0
## 95 percent confidence interval:
##  4.871957 5.083310
## sample estimates:
## mean difference 
##        4.977633

Running a paired t-test on the data show that there is a statistically significant difference between performance of the teams. Without additional analysis, it is safe to assume that teams 2 and 3 are need of additional support.

Facilitator Averages for Q10 (Likely to recommend Instructional Partners)
Primary_Facilitator Facilitator_Mean_Q10 N_Responses_Q10
59 7.39 41
36 7.40 55
17 7.53 32
19 7.89 47
34 7.95 55
29 8.07 41
11 8.11 88
30 8.13 38
1 8.15 68
44 8.29 38
41 8.30 47
16 8.36 33
5 8.40 121
28 8.41 29
22 8.49 35

The table above provides the bottom lowest performing primary facilitators according to Q10, assuming that the individual had at least 25 ratings. Only facilitator 17 is no longer active. Of the fourteen remaining, 6 or 43% are on Team 2 and 4 or 29% are on Team 3. This analysis further supports the idea that Teams 2 and 3 can benefit from additional support.