Liberty Public Schools - BoardDocs, a Diligent Brand...process will not be difficult, while also building rapport with the interviewer – rapport that will be important when the questions

Liberty Public Schools2017 Community Telephone Survey

Final Report

December 19, 2017

Liberty cover 2017.indd 1 12/12/2017 12:02:05 PM

Liberty Public Schools2017 Community Telephone Survey

Final Report

December 19, 2017

Liberty cover 2017.indd 1 12/12/2017 12:02:05 PM

1

Liberty Public Schools 2017 Community Telephone Survey

Executive Summary December 19, 2017

In late November and early December 2017, a 10- to 12-minute telephone study was conducted with 400 randomly selected, heads of households (male or female) who lived within the boundaries of the Liberty Public Schools to determine their views on the district’s performance and to hear their thoughts on ideas currently being considered for a potential bond issue. Calls were placed to landlines and cell phone numbers, and the completed interviews were divided into four quadrants, using I-35 and Highway 152 as the dividing lines. The number of completed interviews in each quadrant was identified by the school district leadership as being representative of the general population pattern. This means that the data contained in the report that represents the opinions of the total survey group of 400 has a Margin of Error of plus or minus 5%, at the 95% confidence level. (The Margin of Error is higher for the subgroups within the cross-tabulation analysis, because the number of respondents in each subgroup is smaller.) The specific findings from the survey are as follows: “Grades” for the district’s performance Survey respondents gave 14 of 17 different people, program, facility and district/patron relationship factors – plus the district’s overall performance – a grade of “B” or better (or the statistical equivalent of a “B”) on the traditional A-F grading scale. At the top of the list, in terms of the scores, were “The quality of the technology available to students in the classroom,” “Performance of district teachers,” “Safety of students in the district” and “Quality of education provided to students.” The three areas that were below the statistical equivalent of a “B” were extremely close to the score necessary to achieve that level. Those factors were “The district’s responsiveness to citizen concerns,” “The district’s record on fulfilling promises made to the community” and “Efforts of the district to involve citizens in decision-making.” Identification of Patron Hot Buttons All 17 graded factors achieved Patron Hot Button status, meaning that at least 81% of the respondents were willing to offer a grade on that specific factor, rather than saying, “Don’t know.” Patron Hot Buttons are used to denote the factors that come to mind first for typical patrons, when the school district is mentioned. In the case of the Liberty Public Schools, the

2

interest is so broad that more than four out of five participants were willing to offer a grade on all the factors. Strengths of the district and areas needing improvement When asked (in separate, open-ended questions) to identify what they considered to be the school district’s strengths and areas where it could improve, the “strengths” were led by “Teachers,” “Strong academics/curriculum” and “Plenty of extracurricular activities.” A total of 114 respondents were unable to identify an area needing improvement. Those who did were led by “Managing money/budget” and “Better communication.” Support or opposition to the ideas being considered by the district for a bond issue Matter-of-fact descriptions of eight project ideas (or, where appropriate, logically connected groups of projects) were read individually to each respondent. After each one, participants were asked if including this particular project would make them “More likely to vote in favor” of the bond issue, “More likely to vote against” or would it “Make no difference in their voting decision.” (While it was not offered as an option, “Don’t know” was recorded by the interviewers, if that was the response provided by a participant). Five of the eight projects had support that ranged from “very strong” to “solid”:

• Franklin Elementary additions – 73% “More likely to vote in favor” • Security upgrades at the remaining schools that need them – 67% • HVAC replacement at LHS – 65% • Infrastructure needs at various schools – 64% • Fine Arts space at LHS – 57%

The remaining three projects had more support than opposition, but that support was somewhat less enthusiastic.

• Add an academic wing at LNHS – 49% • Space for support services – 44% • Create innovative learning spaces for students – 41%

The LNHS project was particularly unpopular in the LHS geographic area, while the space for support services likely struggled somewhat, due to the fact that it doesn’t suggest a direct benefit for students. The “innovative learning spaces” project description had some examples, but it likely was too nebulous, at this time, to generate strong support.

3

Support or opposition to a bond issue When asked to state their level of support for a bond issue featuring the projects that had been discussed in the survey – before knowing anything about the cost to taxpayers – 64% said they would “Strongly favor” or “Favor” such a proposal, if the election were held today. When informed that the proposal would not require a tax increase, support grew to 78% (combined “Strongly favor/Favor,” if an election were held today). Information sources for district news Ten of 21 potential sources of district news (aside from weather-related school closing information) are consulted “frequently” for such information by more than one out of three survey respondents. At the top of the list were “Friends and neighbors,” “The Liberty Courier-Tribune newspaper or website” and “The district’s printed newsletter, called LPS Educator, that is mailed to all residents.” The full report that follows presents a series of findings, discussion of each of these findings, and all the questions, answers and appropriate cross-tabulations. A brief summary closes the report.

4

Liberty Public Schools 2017 Community Telephone Survey

Final Report December 19, 2017

Finding 1: Fourteen out of 17 different people, program, facility and district/patron relationship factors – plus the district’s overall performance – received a grade of “B” or better on the traditional A-F grading scale. In addition, all 17 factors qualified as “Patron Hot Buttons,” meaning that at least 81% of the respondents were willing to offer a grade, rather than saying, “Don’t know.” This suggests the presence of an interested and engaged community. In late November and early December 2017, a 10- to 12-minute random dial telephone survey was conducted with 400 head-of-household (male or female), registered voters living within the boundaries of the Liberty Public Schools to address a variety of issues. Calls were placed to landlines and cell phone numbers, and the completed interviews were divided into four quadrants – using I-35 and Highway 152 as the dividing lines – in quantities that represented the general population pattern in the school district, according to the district leadership. This means that the results in this report that reflect the opinions of all 400 respondents have a Margin of Error of plus or minus 5%, at the 95% confidence level. (The Margin of Error for the geographic and demographic subgroups is larger, because the number of respondents in each subgroup is smaller.) Once an individual demonstrated that he or she was qualified to participate, he or she was read a list of 17 different people, program, facility and district/patron relationship factors (along with the district’s overall performance) and asked to give each one a “grade” of A, B, C, D or F. The reason the survey begins with such questions is to make it clear to the respondents that this process will not be difficult, while also building rapport with the interviewer – rapport that will be important when the questions become more difficult later in the survey. This question set also provides an excellent snapshot of current patron opinion on a variety of components related to the district and its performance. All the grades for all the factors are displayed below. However, to simplify the analysis, a 5-point weighted scale has also been applied. In this scale, each grade of “A” is worth 5 points, down to each grade of “F” being worth 1 point. The point values are totaled and divided by the number of respondents willing to offer a grade (rather than saying, “Don’t know”).

5

Recognizing that securing an “A” in this exercise would require all those with an opinion to say, “A,” the dividing line between areas of strength and those that may need attention is usually considered a “B” (4.00). However, taking into account the Margin of Error, a score as low as 3.80 is still, statistically speaking, a “B.” For the Liberty Public Schools, 14 of the 17 factors – plus the district’s “overall” performance – received a grade of “B” or better (or the statistical equivalent of a “B”). Those at the top of the list included the following:

• The quality of the technology available to students in the classroom – 4.53 on a 5.00 scale • Performance of district teachers – 4.50 • Safety of students in the district – 4.47 • Quality of education provided to students – 4.46 • Efforts of the district to provide school facilities that meet the needs of the students –

4.45 • Offering innovative curriculum and programming to students across the district – 4.38

Having more than 82% of the factors (which does not include the “overall grade”) achieve a level of “B” or higher puts the Liberty Public Schools in the upper tier of districts whose patrons have completed this exercise since 1992. The three that fell short of 3.80 were fractionally below that mark:

• The district’s responsiveness to citizen concerns – 3.79 • The district’s record on fulfilling promises made to the community – 3.79 • Efforts of the district to involve citizens in decision-making – 3.73

Even though these three factors were extremely close to 3.80, it is Patron Insight’s standard procedure to conduct a cross-tabulation analysis on these factors to determine if where a respondent lived or one or more of his or her demographic characteristics influenced his or her grade. In reviewing cross-tabulation data, it is important to pay close attention to the “n” number, which denotes the number of individuals within that subgroup. Those groups with small “n” numbers can have their overall scores influenced dramatically by just a few different answers within their group. As such, it is best to look for trends within the cross-tabulation data, rather than to focus on individual numbers. In doing so with these three factors, the following trends were noticed:

6

• The “student status” subgroups followed a pattern that is found in successful school

districts. Specifically, current student families have the highest scores. That was true in this case and, in fact, all three of these factors topped 3.80 among current student families. Past student families (meaning all district students in the household have graduated) were second, and not dramatically lower than current student families. Coming in third (but with respectable scores) were “Never” student families.

• Those living west of I-35 and south of Highway 152 had the highest scores, although it is

important to note that their “n” number was a modest 60. The region in fourth place on all three characteristics was west of I-35 and north of Highway 152.

• In terms of the age of the respondent, the traditional “sweet spot” for interaction with the school district – ages 35 to 54 – scored well. A pleasant surprise was that the group of those 55 or older was right there with the middle-aged group.

• Another encouraging sign is that long-term residents (more than 15 years) had the highest scores – if one discounts the even higher scores of the small group of 44 respondents who had lived in the district up to five years.

• Gender played little role in the opinions expressed, although female respondents were notably higher than male respondents (but still scored below 3.80) on “Efforts of the district to involve citizens in decision-making.”

The other component of the grading exercise is the identification of Patron Hot Buttons. These are the factors that at least 81% of the survey respondents were willing to offer a grade on, rather than saying, “Don’t know.” In essence, Patron Hot Buttons are the factors that the respondents appear to consider first, when they think about the school district. All 17 factors qualified as Patron Hot Buttons, suggesting a significant interest in the school district, strong opinions that may be based on fact or supposition, or a combination of the two. Whatever the case, the school district is clearly the topic of much conversation in the community. Questions 1– 3 asked respondents whether or not they were a head of household (male or female), were a registered voter, and lived within the boundaries of the Liberty Public Schools. To continue with the survey, a respondent had to answer, “Yes” to these questions. As such, those questions are not displayed below.

7

All answers with percentages may add to more or less than 100%, due to rounding. In reviewing the verbatim answers shown in this report, it is important to remember that each is one response, by one person and is not indicative of a trend. Also, in reviewing the cross-tabulations (as mentioned above), it is important to keep the “n” number in mind. Groups with smaller “n” numbers can have their scores impacted significantly by a small number of responses. As such, in the case of the cross-tabulations, it is best to look for trends, rather than to focus on individual numbers.

4. And to be certain that all parts of the school district are represented in this survey, can you tell me whether you live east or west of I-35? Do you live north or south of Highway 152? Quota was identified by the school district leadership as being representative of the population pattern. Numbers, rather than percentages, displayed below.

Response Number

East of I-35 and north of 152 100 East of I-35 and south of 152 100 West of I-35 and north of 152 140 West of I-35 and south of 152 60

As you know, students in school are traditionally given a grade of A, B, C, D or F to reflect the quality of their work. Based on your experience, the experience of your children, or things you have heard about the Liberty Public Schools from others, please tell me what grade you would give the Liberty Public Schools on each of the following items. Let’s start with…Questions 5 through 21 were rotated, to eliminate order bias.

5. Performance of district teachers

Response Percentage A 59% B 33% C 5% D 2% F 0%

Don’t know (not read) 1%

8

6. Quality of education provided to students

Response Percentage

A 55% B 37% C 6% D 2% F 0%


7. Offering innovative curriculum and programming to students across the district



8. Efforts of the district to provide school facilities that meet the needs of the students



9

9. Value received by residents for the tax dollars spent

Response Percentage

A 41% B 31% C 17% D 1% F 6%


10. The quality of the technology available to students in the classroom



11. Preparing students to be college- and/or career-ready



10

12. Performance of school principals

Response Percentage

A 42% B 44% C 7% D 1% F 2%


13. Performance of district administration



14. Performance of the Liberty School Board



11

15. Efforts of the district to involve citizens in decision-making

Response Percentage

A 25% B 31% C 26% D 2% F 7%


16. Efforts of the district to communicate its plans and progress to citizens



17. The district’s record on fulfilling promises made to the community



12

18. The district’s responsiveness to citizen concerns

Response Percentage

A 23% B 38% C 20% D 3% F 6%


19. Safety of students in the district



20. Quality and effectiveness of the Liberty school facilities



13

21. Class sizes, meaning the number of students in each classroom

Response Percentage

A 29% B 33% C 21% D 2% F 0%


22. Thinking about everything you know or have heard about the district, what overall grade would you give the Liberty Public Schools?

Response Percentage

A 42% B 49% C 7% D 1% F 1%


14

Cross-tabulation: Weighted 5-point scale rating for each factor. Factors that scored at 3.80 or higher are the statistical equivalent of a “B” (or better). All graded factors achieved “Patron Hot Button” status, meaning that at least 81% of the respondents were willing to offer a grade, rather than saying, “Don’t know.” This suggests the presence of a very interested and engaged community.

Factor 5-point weighted scale

rating The quality of the technology available to students in the

classroom 4.53

Performance of district teachers 4.50 Safety of students in the district 4.47

Quality of education provided to students 4.46 Efforts of the district to provide school facilities that meet the

needs of the students 4.45

Offering innovative curriculum and programming to students across the district

4.38

Quality and effectiveness of the Liberty school facilities 4.32 Overall grade 4.32

Performance of school principals 4.29 Preparing students to be college- and/or career-ready 4.25

Performance of district administration 4.14 Class sizes, meaning the number of students in each classroom 4.06

Value received by residents for the tax dollars spent 4.04 Efforts of the district to communicate its plans and progress to

citizens 3.95

Performance of the Liberty School Board 3.88 The district’s responsiveness to citizen concerns 3.79

The district’s record on fulfilling promises made to the community 3.79 Efforts of the district to involve citizens in decision-making 3.73

15

Cro

ss-t

abul

atio

n: W

eigh

ted

5-po

int s

cale

scor

e fo

r fa

ctor

s tha

t sco

red

unde

r 3.

80 b

y ag

e, le

ngth

of t

ime

livin

g in

the

dist

rict

and

ge

nder

. Not

e: “

n” e

qual

s the

num

ber

of r

espo

nden

ts in

eac

h gr

oup.

“A

ge”

will

not

squa

re w

ith “

over

all”

scor

e, b

ecau

se fo

ur

resp

onde

nts r

efus

ed to

ans

wer

this

que

stio

n.

Fa

ctor

O

vera

ll sc

ore

18

-34

(n=6

5)

35-5

4 (n

=186

) 55

or

olde

r (n

=145

)

U

p to

5

year

s (n

=44)

5-15

ye

ars

(n=1

17)

Mor

e th

an 1

5 ye

ars

(n=2

39)

Fe

mal

e (n

=233

) M

ale

(n=1

67)

The

dist

rict’s

resp

onsi

vene

ss to

citi

zen

conc

erns

3.

79

3.

70

3.80

3.

83

4.

03

3.64

3.

84

3.

81

3.77

The

dist

rict’s

reco

rd o

n fu

lfilli

ng p

rom

ises

m

ade

to th

e co

mm

unity

3.

79

3.

51

3.86

3.

83

3.

97

3.55

3.

86

3.

78

3.80

Effo

rts o

f the

dis

trict

to in

volv

e ci

tizen

s in

deci

sion

-mak

ing

3.73

3.66

3.

73

3.73

3.79

3.

56

3.79

3.77

3.

58

Cro

ss-t

abul

atio

n: W

eigh

ted

5-po

int s

cale

scor

e fo

r fa

ctor

s tha

t sco

red

unde

r 3.

80 b

y lo

catio

n of

the

resp

onde

nt’s

res

iden

ce, a

nd b

y th

e pr

esen

ce o

f a c

urre

nt d

istr

ict s

tude

nt in

the

hous

ehol

d, a

pas

t stu

dent

(but

no

curr

ent s

tude

nt) o

r no

stud

ent e

ver

in th

e ho

useh

old.

Not

e: “

n” e

qual

s the

num

ber

of r

espo

nden

ts in

eac

h gr

oup.

Fact

or

Ove

rall

scor

e

E/I

-35

and

N/1

52

(n=1

00)

E/I

-35

and

S/15

2 (n

=100

)

W/I

-35

and

N/1

52

(n=1

40)

W/I

-35

and

S/15

2 (n

=60)

Stud

ent,

yes

(n=1

26)

Stud

ent,

past

(n

=121

)

Stud

ent,

neve

r (n

=153

) Th

e di

stric

t’s re

spon

sive

ness

to c

itize

n co

ncer

ns

3.79

3.89

3.

83

3.63

3.

98

3.

99

3.76

3.

66

The

dist

rict’s

reco

rd o

n fu

lfilli

ng p

rom

ises

m

ade

to th

e co

mm

unity

3.

79

3.

82

3.86

3.

62

4.33

3.91

3.

83

3.68

Effo

rts o

f the

dis

trict

to in

volv

e ci

tizen

s in

deci

sion

-mak

ing

3.73

3.71

3.

75

3.61

4.

00

3.

87

3.71

3.

61

16

Finding 2: “Teachers,” “Strong academics/curriculum” and “Plenty of extracurricular activities” were the most frequently identified strengths of the Liberty Public Schools. Areas where the district could improve were led by “Don’t know,” followed by “Managing money/budget” and “Better communication.” The evaluation portion of the survey closed with two open-ended questions offering respondents the chance to share their thoughts on the district’s strengths and on areas where it could improve. All 400 responses to each question were read and, where possible, coded, based on common words, phrases and ideas to pinpoint the most frequently mentioned areas. In doing so, “Teachers” (89 mentions) topped the list of strengths. This was followed by “Strong academics/curriculum” (72 mentions) and “Plenty of extracurricular activities” (58 mentions). In terms of areas needing improvement, that list was led by “Don’t know” (114 mentions), followed by “Managing money/budget” (85 mentions) and “Better communication” (53 mentions). Having “Don’t know” be the top response on this question is good news, because it means that a notable percentage of the population has no concerns that are top of mind. The issue of “Managing money/budget” is a common one for all school districts on this question, and the number of mentions on the survey for Liberty Public Schools is fairly typical for a district in which 400 interviews were completed. Below the charts for each question are verbatim comments that are either “one-off” items, have more than one idea contained in the comment or some combination of these factors. It is important to remember when reviewing these that each is one comment, by one person. Had they been indicative of a trend, they would have appeared in enough quantity to appear in the chart associated with the question.

23. What do you think are the district’s strengths? Open-ended responses were coded, based on common words, phrases and ideas. Numbers, rather than percentages, displayed below.

Response Number Teachers 89

Strong academics/curriculum 72 Plenty of extracurricular activities 58

Other (see below) 55 Facilities 44

Community support/involvement 40 Don’t know 27 School spirit 15

17

Verbatim “other” comments The facilities are top of the line and the teachers care about the kids’ success. They have a good reputation. They are still relatively small, and they have good community support. Not much. Overall quality of personnel and support staff. The teachers are really strong, for the most part. Parents are very supportive. I think they do a really good job of looking into the future, like what's going to happen in 20 years. Their teachers and the facilities. Teachers’ strong character traits. Students are respectful and thoughtful of others. The teachers and parental involvement. Small-town feel with big city amenities. Mr. Money at the high school – Director of the Performing Arts. They’re an A-1 school. Good technology for the students. The quality of their staff, the teachers and principals. The opportunities students have and the variety of the courses. The programs for Special Needs kids are great. They have a good reputation. The science and technology program. They do as much as they can with the funds available. None. The record shows that they do a good quality job in music, debate and drama. The teachers seem focused, on task and sincere. Good reputation. Probably technology.

18

The teachers. The graduation rate and those going on to college. Teachers communicating with parents and technology. They always try to be innovative. They work hard for and care for the students. I think they try to tailor to the students’ needs. Good leadership. The programs they offer, such as Fine Arts and Vocal Music. Providing a variety of opportunities for all students of all grade levels. No opinion. A conscious effort to hire teachers that do the best they can. Fine Arts and STEM program. Extracurricular activities have a high participation rate, like 70%. Foreign languages. They’re innovative. They’re safe and they have very high-quality teachers. Most of the teachers seem to care and provide a good environment to learn. Overall, it provides a good education for the students in this district. Community support. Athletics. That’s about it. That’s all they care about, and they market it by telling everyone how wonderful they are. Nothing really that I can think of. Maybe that they do provide a safe environment. Progressive. They have the students’ best interests in mind. They are strong. The Fine Arts program and technology. Providing a wide range of opportunities for students to grow. The technology they offer.

19

They offer a lot of broad-based programs to help all the students. Math and science are emphasized. They try to offer excellent curriculum to prepare students for college and an opportunity to choose the area they want to enter. Integrity and a good place to attend school. They are reliable. Families. Curriculum and personnel. They prepare students for college. Neighborhood schools. None. Strong Fine Arts programs. A lot of it has to do with what the children need and trying to zero in on helping out. I’d say their education efforts would be a strong point. The teachers are super. It’s a close-knit group. They know you and make an effort to know you. It is easy to talk to them about your child. Overall, they care about their students and have great programs for them to get involved with. The city itself. The atmosphere around the school. Great reputation and good athletics.

20

24. Where could the district improve? Open-ended responses were coded, based on

common words, phrases and ideas. Numbers, rather than percentages, displayed below.

Response Number Don’t know 114

Managing money/budget 85 Other (see below) 62

Better communication 53 Reduce class sizes 36

Hiring more quality teachers 31 Emphasize academics over sports 19

Verbatim “other” comments Upgrading the facilities. College preparation and real-life experiences need to be explored more in depth. I think they could expand their thinking about opportunities for students. Administration tends to not have the best approach when it comes to people, but does for numbers. Stronger discipline for the really bad kids. Not wasteful spending. Transparency with the administration. They just need to continue doing what they are doing. Besides communicating with us better, I would like to see more emphasis in the arts programs. Have a functioning auditorium for band and other performing arts. New and fresh ideas especially for fifth-graders going to middle school to better prepare them for the homework. Be honest with the people in the district. Doing fine. They are the experts.

21

Too much politics to get anything done. The athletics. They are good for those that are good at sports, but those who are not are left out. There needs to be opportunities for the others to still participate. The overcrowding of class sizes needs to be worked on. I would like to see the district do more on teaching kids how to learn and study and organize work. These skills will help them more than knowing a lot of what is taught. Spelling programs in the early elementary. Bullying at the middle school is out of hand. Keeping parents involved. To be fair in recognizing students in debate, music and drama – not just sports. A trade skills program for students who are not college-ready. They should have metal detectors at the games. Too many to mention. I think teachers should use less computers and quit depending on them so much. Have hands-on teaching. Better spending of dollars. They have too many administrators. They need to reduce their overhead. Making sure all teachers are taking learning seriously and not just seeing students as a number or a job. Seems to be a good ole boys’ club. To get anything done you have to kiss rear end. Put cursive back in the schools. Do not allow the students to have access to cell phones and laptops in the classroom. Having access to their cell phones and laptops is a distraction to other students and allows for cheating on tests. Fine as is. Continue the good work. We could do a little more at the high school level with career readiness for non-college-bound kids and encouraging college-bound students to take more rigorous course work.

22

Facility planning. No opinion. Technology. More funding for the Fine Arts programs. Be cognizant of bullying behavior. Teaching real-life skills. They need to redo boundaries for the two high schools. Better communication. Being more active in caring for our kids with Special Needs, instead of sending them to other districts. Continue to hold students accountable for their portion of academic performances. Reduce management expenses and provide more income for teachers and basic education, like math. They can’t even make change without help. Money management. We have the highest taxes in this area. Work on college readiness. Facility updates and renovations are not distributed evenly. Liberty High School has been neglected, while Liberty North gets more than they need. Support teachers more. Make students more accountable for their education. The lack of discipline in the classrooms is getting out of hand. Most aren’t prepared to meet the real world, and they are in a bubble on how and what to learn. I’m thinking they could improve curriculum by looking outside the box. A mess from top to bottom. Starts with accountability at all levels. Perhaps a more comprehensive drug education program. Include the parents on what’s out there and how to recognize it.

23

They need to be more concerned about meeting the needs of the students, instead of being concerned with the “numbers,” meaning the total number of students. They also need to consider more raises for teachers and less raises for administrators. Possibly offering more support for students who are struggling. Teachers pay. More money for music and arts, and not so much for athletics. I’m concerned about the drugs and alcohol. Need more education in this area. Being more careful in how they spend the district’s money. Use it fairly between all the schools. Understand cultural diversity and language differences. Teaching, instructional support for student teachers. Lack of security. They present a picture of safety, but it’s not safe. The No Child Left Behind reduces the quality of education. Just keep doing what you are doing. We have a strong district. They could spend money more wisely and hire more quality teachers. Need to give more help to students who are struggling, but who don’t qualify for Special Ed. They are more worried about the numbers than teaching real-life skills. They could do a little better at the starting of the day. If a couple of kids aren’t there, the parents should notify the school of their absence, so the teachers don’t wait around before starting the day. By going back to using pencils. Work together as one and not try and outdo each other. Perhaps more diversity in the Special Education programs.

24

Finding 3: There was more support than opposition for each of the eight projects (or project groups) presented to the respondents for their consideration. Some of that support was dramatic – such as 73% saying they would be more likely to vote in favor of a bond issue, if it included additions to Franklin Elementary School. Some of it – such as space for the support staff and the rather difficult-to-define “innovative learning spaces” – was more modest, but still more positive than negative. The most interesting aspect of this part of the survey was the cross-tabulations, where support varied notably in a number of cases. The survey then turned to the projects being considered by the district for a potential future bond issue. Each project (or group of projects, when grouping them made the most sense) was described in matter-of-fact terms. After the description had been read, the participant was asked if including this particular project (again, or project group) in a bond issue would make him or her “More likely to vote in favor,” “More likely to vote against” or would it “Make no difference in his or her voting decision,” if the election were held today. (While it was not presented as an option, the interviewers did record “Don’t know,” if that was the response from the survey participant.) The purpose of this exercise is to see what projects stand out as being viewed very positively, which seem to be acceptable – even if they don’t generate a lot of enthusiasm – and which, if any, should be cause for concern for the district. Of the eight projects, five of them stimulated support that ranged from “very strong” to “solid.” Those projects (and their “More likely to vote in favor” percentages) are as follows, in truncated form:

• Franklin Elementary additions – 73% • Security upgrades at the remaining schools that need them – 67% • HVAC replacement at LHS – 65% • Addressing infrastructure needs at various schools – 64% • Adding Fine Arts space at LHS – 57%

The three projects that did not top 50% “More likely to vote in favor” – but were still more positive than negative – were:

• Adding an academic wing at LNHS – 49% • Space for support services – 44% • Creating innovative learning spaces for students – 41%

25

Overall, the results on these three lowest-rated projects suggest that a notable segment of typical residents have questions about the need, the benefit and what would exactly be included. This is particularly true in the case of the question regarding the “innovative learning spaces” project. While some of the ideas for such spaces could be generally defined, it is clear that the final project list under this category remains fluid. For those without a student currently in the district, such fluidity can sometimes make it harder to be supportive. Where this data became particularly interesting was in the cross-tabulations. Specifically:

• Respondents ages 35 to 54 were the most supportive on all the projects, but the differences in their scores and the other two age segments were modest, in most cases.

• Length of time living in the district (again, setting aside the small group of newcomers) was fairly insignificant in the impact on the scores, as was gender.

• Current student families were, as would be expected, considering the other data in the report, the most supportive on all the projects, with some of the score differences being notable.

• The real dramatic points of difference were in the location of the respondent’s residence. This is particularly notable on the LNHS project – where those living south of 152 and on either side of I-35 were far from excited about this idea, while those on the opposite side of 152 and, again, either side of I-35 were enthusiastic. While this is the most notable difference of opinion, there are smaller differences seen on many other projects within this subgroup.

In looking at this cross-tabulation data, it is important to remember that “It would make no difference in my voting decision” and “Don’t know” are not shown. This is why some of the scores shown in these charts do not add anywhere close to 100%. As you may know, the Liberty School District has been consulting with members of the community, its own staff and outside professionals, such as architects, to study the district’s facilities and identify renovation, replacement and expansion needs. I’m now going to read you a short list with information about each of these ideas that might be included in a bond issue in the future. After I finish reading each one, please tell me if including it in a future bond issue would make you “More likely to vote in favor” of the bond issue, “More likely to vote against” or that it would “Make no difference in your voting decision.” Let’s start with…

26

25. Most of the schools in the district are secured at the front entrance, so that visitors

have to come through the office and sign in before they are allowed into the building. One idea for this bond issue is to renovate the remaining schools that do not yet have such a system in place. If this project was part of a bond issue, and the election were held today, would you be…? Choices, except where indicated, were read to respondents on this question and reread on future questions, only if requested.

Response Percentage

More likely to vote in favor of the bond issue

67%

More likely to vote against 9% It would make no difference in my

voting decision 21%


26. Another project idea is a short list of renovations or expansions of basic facilities

and infrastructure needs at several schools. Specifically, this includes restroom renovations at Liberty High School and Heritage Middle School, kitchen and cafeteria upgrades at Franklin Elementary, Heritage Middle School and Liberty High School, and additional parking at both Liberty High School and Liberty North High School. If these projects were part of a bond issue, and the election were held today, would you be…?

Response Percentage


64%


voting decision 20%


27

27. Which project or projects from the list I just read would make you more likely to

vote against a bond issue, if it – or they – were included? Asked only of the 51 respondents who answered, “More likely to vote against” on question 26. Responses were coded, based on common words, phrases and ideas. Numbers, rather than percentages, displayed below.

Response Number

All of them 23 Parking is adequate at the high

schools 14

Cafeteria upgrades 9 Other (see below) 5

Verbatim “other” comments Every one of them. They need to use the money they have for repairs. All of them. None of them are needed. The district just wants more money to waste. All of the above. I’m not hearing anything on that list that excites me, except maybe to make sure the restrooms are up to date. The parking. There is enough parking right now for all schools. Not too concerned about the cafeteria as well. I’m against all bond issues.

28

28. Another project idea under consideration is adding space at Franklin Elementary to

accommodate the growth at that school. This additional space would include a new gymnasium. The current gym would be converted into a kitchen/cafeteria/ multipurpose area, and the current cafeteria would be converted for use as classroom space. This would allow the district to remove the trailers behind Franklin that are currently being used as classrooms. If this project was part of a bond issue, and the election were held today, would you be…?

Response Percentage


73%


voting decision 19%


29. Another project idea is to enhance the Fine Arts space for students at Liberty High School, including the addition of an auditorium for practices and performances as well as upgrades and additions to the Fine Arts wing. If this project was part of a bond issue, and the election were held today, would you be…?

Response Percentage


57%


voting decision 23%


29

30. The final Liberty High School project idea is replacement of the aging rooftop

mounted Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning – or HVAC – system with an up-to-date system that is more energy efficient. If this project was part of a bond issue, and the election were held today, would you be…?

Response Percentage


65%


voting decision 22%


31. Another idea is to add an academic wing to Liberty NORTH (MAKE CERTAIN THAT “NORTH” IS CLEAR) High School to accommodate growth. This wing would accommodate up to 500 students, offering the school greater flexibility in building use. If this project was part of a bond issue, and the election were held today, would you be…?

Response Percentage


49%


voting decision 25%


30

32. Another project idea is to invest in space for the support facilities of the district –

such as maintenance, building and ground, purchasing, nutrition services, and transportation – to improve on the current space situation for these services and to enhance efficiency. If this project was part of a bond issue, and the election were held today, would you be…?

Response Percentage


44%


voting decision 40%


33. Another idea is to create innovative learning spaces in existing facilities to provide students with project-based, collaborative work-related learning opportunities. Some examples of how this might work could be renovating a vacant storefront for a STEM academy, or investing in existing school space to create an entrepreneurship lab. If this was part of a bond issue, and the election were held today, would you be…?

Response Percentage


41%


voting decision 22%


31

Cro

ss-t

abul

atio

n: “

Mor

e lik

ely

to v

ote

in fa

vor”

and

“M

ore

likel

y to

vot

e ag

ains

t” p

erce

ntag

es fo

r ea

ch p

roje

ct b

y ag

e, le

ngth

of t

ime

livin

g in

the

dist

rict

and

gen

der.

Not

e: “

n” e

qual

s the

num

ber

of r

espo

nden

ts in

eac

h gr

oup.

“A

ge”

will

not

squa

re w

ith “

over

all”

scor

e,

beca

use

four

res

pond

ents

ref

used

to a

nsw

er th

is q

uest

ion.

Proj

ect

Ove

rall

scor

e

18-3

4 (n

=65)

35

-54

(n=1

86)

55 o

r ol

der

(n=1

45)

U

p to

5

year

s (n

=44)

5-15

ye

ars

(n=1

17)

Mor

e th

an 1

5 ye

ars

(n=2

39)

Fe

mal

e (n

=233

) M

ale

(n=1

67)

Fran

klin

Ele

men

tary

add

ition

s/fa

vor

73%

65%

76

%

73%

66%

73

%

74%

73%

72

%

Fran

klin

Ele

men

tary

add

ition

s/ag

ains

t 6%

6%

6%

4%

7%

8%

5%

5%

7%

Se

curit

y up

grad

es a

t rem

aini

ng sc

hool

s/fa

vor

67%

62%

69

%

66%

73%

66

%

66%

65%

68

%

Secu

rity

upgr

ades

at r

emai

ning

scho

ols/

agai

nst

9%

12

%

8%

8%

11

%

9%

9%

9%

10

%

H

VA

C re

plac

emen

t at L

HS/

favo

r 65

%

63

%

67%

64

%

68

%

61%

67

%

63

%

68%

H

VA

C re

plac

emen

t at L

HS/

agai

nst

10%

9%

9%

10%

9%

13%

8%

9%

10%

Infr

astru

ctur

e ne

eds a

t var

ious

scho

ols/

favo

r 64

%

58

%

68%

61

%

64

%

60%

65

%

64

%

63%

In

fras

truct

ure

need

s at v

ario

us sc

hool

s/ag

ains

t 13

%

17

%

10%

13

%

14

%

14%

12

%

13

%

13%

Fine

Arts

spac

e at

LH

S/fa

vor

57%

52%

59

%

57%

50%

54

%

60%

54%

61

%

Fine

Arts

spac

e at

LH

S/ag

ains

t 18

%

17

%

19%

15

%

20

%

23%

15

%

18

%

17%

Add

aca

dem

ic w

ing

to L

NH

S/fa

vor

49%

49%

55

%

43%

48%

49

%

50%

49%

49

%

Add

aca

dem

ic w

ing

to L

NH

S/ag

ains

t 22

%

22

%

14%

30

%

20

%

21%

22

%

22

%

20%

Spac

e fo

r sup

port

serv

ices

/favo

r 44

%

34

%

48%

43

%

36

%

47%

44

%

45

%

43%

Sp

ace

for s

uppo

rt se

rvic

es/a

gain

st

11%

8%

8%

15%

7%

12%

10

%

11

%

10%

Inno

vativ

e le

arni

ng sp

aces

/favo

r 41

%

31

%

47%

39

%

50

%

38%

41

%

42

%

40%

In

nova

tive

lear

ning

spac

es/a

gain

st

29%

35%

24

%

31%

23%

32

%

28%

31%

26

%

32

Cro

ss-t

abul

atio

n: “

Mor

e lik

ely

to v

ote

in fa

vor”

and

“M

ore

likel

y to

vot

e ag

ains

t” p

erce

ntag

es fo

r ea

ch p

roje

ct b

y lo

catio

n of

the

resp

onde

nt’s

res

iden

ce, a

nd b

y th

e pr

esen

ce o

f a c

urre

nt d

istr

ict s

tude

nt in

the

hous

ehol

d, a

pas

t stu

dent

(but

no

curr

ent s

tude

nt) o

r no

st

uden

t eve

r in

the

hous

ehol

d. N

ote:

“n”

equ

als t

he n

umbe

r of

res

pond

ents

in e

ach

grou

p.

Pr

ojec

t O

vera

ll sc

ore

E

/I-3

5 an

d N

/152

(n

=100

)

E/I

-35

and

S/15

2 (n

=100

)

W/I

-35

and

N/1

52

(n=1

40)

W/I

-35

and

S/15

2 (n

=60)

Stud

ent,

yes

(n=1

26)

Stud

ent,

past

(n

=121

)

Stud

ent,

neve

r (n

=153

) Fr

ankl

in E

lem

enta

ry a

dditi

ons/

favo

r 73

%

81

%

63%

73

%

75%

78%

74

%

68%

Fr

ankl

in E

lem

enta

ry a

dditi

ons/

agai

nst

6%

5%

6%

8%

2%

6%

7%

5%

Se

curit

y up

grad

es a

t rem

aini

ng sc

hool

s/fa

vor

67%

68%

61

%

66%

75

%

75

%

65%

61

%

Secu

rity

upgr

ades

at r

emai

ning

scho

ols/

agai

nst

9%

7%

11

%

11%

5%

6%

11%

10

%

H

VA

C re

plac

emen

t at L

HS/

favo

r 65

%

74

%

58%

61

%

72%

73%

61

%

61%

H

VA

C re

plac

emen

t at L

HS/

agai

nst

10%

6%

11%

14

%

3%

4%

12

%

12%

Infr

astru

ctur

e ne

eds a

t var

ious

scho

ols/

favo

r 64

%

73

%

56%

59

%

72%

75%

60

%

56%

In

fras

truct

ure

need

s at v

ario

us sc

hool

s/ag

ains

t 13

%

10

%

15%

16

%

5%

10

%

14%

14

%

Fi

ne A

rts sp

ace

at L

HS/

favo

r 57

%

67

%

46%

58

%

57%

64%

55

%

54%

Fi

ne A

rts sp

ace

at L

HS/

agai

nst

18%

14%

25

%

20%

7%

13%

20

%

20%

Add

aca

dem

ic w

ing

to L

NH

S/fa

vor

49%

79%

19

%

56%

33

%

56

%

41%

50

%

Add

aca

dem

ic w

ing

to L

NH

S/ag

ains

t 22

%

6%

45

%

12%

30

%

13

%

31%

21

%

Sp

ace

for s

uppo

rt se

rvic

es/fa

vor

44%

67%

27

%

44%

33

%

55

%

40%

38

%

Spac

e fo

r sup

port

serv

ices

/aga

inst

11

%

6%

17

%

10%

8%

7%

17%

8%

Inno

vativ

e le

arni

ng sp

aces

/favo

r 41

%

53

%

33%

40

%

35%

45%

39

%

39%

In

nova

tive

lear

ning

spac

es/a

gain

st

29%

22%

36

%

29%

28

%

24

%

31%

31

%

33

Finding 4: If an election were held today, 64% of the survey participants said they would “Strongly favor” or “Favor” a bond issue, based on the project information they had just heard – but before hearing anything about the financial consequences of a “Yes” vote. When informed that it would not require a tax increase, the combined “Strongly favor/Favor” percentage jumped to 78%. Because this is outside of the 5% Margin of Error, it means that the “no-tax-increase” message makes a significant difference in the views of a measurable segment of typical patrons. The survey began to draw to a close with a question that asked respondents how they would vote on a bond issue, if the election were held today, based on the project ideas that had been discussed in the survey. A total of 64% said they would either “Strongly favor” or “Favor” it. When all 400 were asked for their level of support or opposition for such a bond issue, if they knew that the bond issue would not require a tax increase, the “Strongly favor/Favor” score increased to 78%. Those who remained in opposition provided reasons that are fairly typical, such as not trusting the district to manage the money and believing there would, in fact, be a tax increase after all. With the exception of the score of 46% for respondents living east of I-35 and south of Highway 152 who said they would “Strongly favor” or “Favor” the bond issue, before hearing it would not require a tax increase, the cross-tabulations revealed nothing of note. (It is interesting, however, that this same subgroup also had the lowest score – 69% – on the question where the fact that it would be a no-tax-increase proposal was revealed.) While the general level of support is certainly encouraging, the district will need to create and execute a clear, crisp, benefit-driven and repetitive informational campaign, once the project list has been identified. The foundation seen here is a solid one, but there is work to do to get the message out to constituents.

34

34. Now that you have heard the ideas being considered for a potential future bond

issue, how do you think you would vote, if the election were held today? Would you…? Choices, except where indicated, were read to respondents.

Response Percentage

Strongly favor it 20% Favor it 44%

Lean favor (not read) 0% Lean oppose (not read) 0%

Oppose 12% Strongly oppose 10%

Depends on what’s included in the final proposal (not read)

4%

Depends on what it costs (not read)

8%


35. Because of the district’s financial planning over the last several years, this bond issue would require NO TAX INCREASE. Knowing this, how do you think you would vote, if the election were held today?

Response Percentage

Strongly favor it 36% Favor it 42%

Lean favor (not read) 1% Lean oppose (not read) 0%

Oppose 7% Strongly oppose 7%


35

36. Why do you think you would oppose this no-tax-increase bond issue, if the election

were held today? Asked only of the 55 respondents who answered question 35 either “Lean oppose,” “Oppose” or “Strongly oppose.” Open-ended responses were coded, based on common words, phrases and ideas. Numbers, rather than percentages, displayed below.

Response Number

Don’t trust the district to manage money

24

Taxes will increase 20 Other (see below) 11

Verbatim “other” comments Because I think the facilities are fine as is, and we shouldn’t have to spend tax dollars wastefully. I don’t believe a word they say. No tax increase, my foot! They lied to us before about no tax increase. I won’t fall for it again. I really believe these projects are not needed. The district wastes the money they have and just want more money to waste. They need to make do with what they have. Well, first off, we went through a tax increase about three years ago for a lot of money and if this one is “no tax increase” that’s probably because something is on the books for something that has been finished. I have no confidence when they say no new taxes. That’s deceptive. Don’t trust them. Have lied in the past. Because they show no fiduciary responsibility and taxes will increase. We have been burned in the past with the so-called no tax increase. They wouldn’t manage the money well anyway. The mill rate goes up, even if there is no tax. Money is wasted. They don’t treat the schools equally. They are lying to us. It means that the levy would continue, instead of stopping on the date proposed, which means taxpayers would still be paying.

36

My taxes will increase, and renters get by with paying nothing.

37

Cro

ss-t

abul

atio

n: C

ombi

ned

“Str

ongl

y fa

vor/

Favo

r” p

erce

ntag

e fo

r th

e ge

nera

l ide

a of

a b

ond

issu

e fe

atur

ing

the

proj

ects

that

had

be

en d

iscu

ssed

and

for

a bo

nd is

sue

once

the

fact

that

it w

ould

not

req

uire

a ta

x in

crea

se w

as p

rese

nted

by

age,

leng

th o

f tim

e liv

ing

in th

e di

stri

ct a

nd g

ende

r. N

ote:

“n”

equ

als t

he n

umbe

r of

res

pond

ents

in e

ach

grou

p. “

Age

” w

ill n

ot sq

uare

with

“ov

eral

l” sc

ore,

be

caus

e fo

ur r

espo

nden

ts r

efus

ed to

ans

wer

this

que

stio

n.

Com

bine

d “S

tron

gly

favo

r/Fa

vor”

per

cent

age

Ove

rall

scor

e

18-3

4 (n

=65)

35

-54

(n=1

86)

55 o

r ol

der

(n=1

45)

U

p to

5

year

s (n

=44)

5-15

ye

ars

(n=1

17)

Mor

e th

an 1

5 ye

ars

(n=2

39)

Fe

mal

e (n

=233

) M

ale

(n=1

67)

Idea

of a

bon

d is

sue

for t

he p

roje

cts t

hat

had

been

dis

cuss

ed

64%

51%

69

%

62%

64%

62

%

63%

64%

62

%

A b

ond

issu

e on

ce th

e in

form

atio

n th

at it

w

ould

not

requ

ire a

tax

incr

ease

was

pr

esen

ted

78%

72%

82

%

75%

80%

77

%

77%

79%

74

%

Cro

ss-t

abul

atio

n: C

ombi

ned

“Str

ongl

y fa

vor/

Favo

r” p

erce

ntag

e fo

r th

e ge

nera

l ide

a of

a b

ond

issu

e fe

atur

ing

the

proj

ects

that

had

be

en d

iscu

ssed

and

for

a bo

nd is

sue

once

the

fact

that

it w

ould

not

req

uire

a ta

x in

crea

se w

as p

rese

nted

by

loca

tion

of th

e re

spon

dent

’s r

esid

ence

, and

by

the

pres

ence

of a

cur

rent

dis

tric

t stu

dent

in th

e ho

useh

old,

a p

ast s

tude

nt (b

ut n

o cu

rren

t stu

dent

) or

no st

uden

t eve

r in

the

hous

ehol

d. N

ote:

“n”

equ

als t

he n

umbe

r of

res

pond

ents

in e

ach

grou

p.

Com

bine

d “S

tron

gly

favo

r/Fa

vor”

per

cent

age

Ove

rall

scor

e

E/I

-35

and

N/1

52

(n=1

00)

E/I

-35

and

S/15

2 (n

=100

)

W/I

-35

and

N/1

52

(n=1

40)

W/I

-35

and

S/15

2 (n

=60)

Stud

ent,

yes

(n=1

26)

Stud

ent,

past

(n

=121

)

Stud

ent,

neve

r (n

=153

) Id

ea o

f a b

ond

issu

e fo

r the

pro

ject

s tha

t had

be

en d

iscu

ssed

64

%

78

%

46%

65

%

62%

73%

58

%

59%

A b

ond

issu

e on

ce th

e in

form

atio

n th

at it

w

ould

not

requ

ire a

tax

incr

ease

was

pr

esen

ted

78%

83%

69

%

78%

80

%

87

%

73%

73

%

38

Finding 5: Of the 21 potential sources consulted for district news (beyond weather-related school closing information), 10 are consulted “frequently” by more than one-third of the survey participants, further suggesting the presence of a community that is very interested in the news of its schools. The main portion of the survey closed with respondents being read a rotated list of 21 potential sources of school district news (aside from weather-related school closing information). Participants were instructed to say, “Yes” if they consulted this source “frequently” for such news and “No” if they consulted it only every so often or never consulted it. Ten of the 21 sources were reported to be consulted “frequently” by more than one out of every three respondents. At the top of that list were the following:

• “Friends and neighbors” (almost always the top “source”) – 83% • The Liberty Courier-Tribune newspaper or website – 68% • The district’s printed newsletter, called LPS Educator, that is mailed to all residents –

59% • Teachers in the district – 44% • The Kansas City Star newspaper or website – 41%

37. Finally, I’m wondering who you turn to for information about the Liberty Public Schools. I’m going to read a short list of people and places where you could look for such information. If you consult this source frequently for district news – besides weather-related school closing information – please say, “Yes.” If you consult it only every so often, or you never consult it, please say, “No.” Let’s start with... List was read and rotated. However, “Teachers” was always read before “Other school staff” to avoid confusion.

Response Percentage

Friends and neighbors 83% The Liberty Courier-Tribune newspaper or website 68%

The district’s printed newsletter called, LPS Educator, that is mailed to all residents

59%

Teachers in the district 44% The Kansas City Star newspaper or website 41%

The school district’s administration, either in person, or when a member of the administration is quoted in

the news media

39%

Outdoor marquees at the schools 38% Members of the School Board, either in person, or 37%

39

when a member of the Board is quoted in the news media

School principals 35% The school district’s website 34%

Individual school newsletters or e-newsletters 31% Local television stations 30%

Other district employees, such as bus drivers, food service staff and those who work in the front office at

individual schools

27%

District-sponsored social media site, like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and YouTube

26%

Local radio stations 24% Social networking sites not connected with the district, but where the district or individual school information

is sometimes discussed

23%

The Parent Teacher Association, also known as the PTA

21%

The school district’s cable channel, which is known as KLPS

19%

Booster clubs 12% The school district’s mobile app 5%

Local civic groups, such as Rotary and Kiwanis 4%

40

Demographics The survey closed with a series of demographic questions that are not subject to quota, but that contain data that is used to create the cross-tabulation groups seen throughout this survey. Some of the highlights:

• The respondents trended toward longer term residents (60% had lived in the district more than 15 years), but they also included 25% who had resided there 10 years or less.

• 60% were between the ages of 25 and 54. • There were 126 current student families, 121 past student families and 153 “never”

student families. • 58% of the respondents were female, while 42% were male.

My last few questions will help us divide our interviews into groups.

38. How long have you, yourself, lived within the boundaries of the Liberty Public Schools? Is it...? Choices were read to respondents.

Response Percentage

Less than 2 years 4% 2 years to 5 years 8%

More than 5 years to 10 years 13% More than 10 years to 15 years 16%

More than 15 years 48% I’ve lived here all my life 12%

39. In what age group are you? Is it...? Choices, except where indicated, were read to respondents.

Response Percentage 18 to 24 2% 25 to 34 14% 35 to 44 24% 45 to 54 22% 55 to 64 21%

65 or older 16% Refused (not read) 1%

41

40. Do you have any children or grandchildren who attend school in the Liberty Public Schools right now? Numbers, rather than percentages, displayed below.

Response Number

Yes, children 121 Yes, children and grandchildren 5

Yes, grandchildren 54 No 220

41. Do you have any children or grandchildren who previously were students in the district, but who have graduated? Asked only of the 274 respondents who did not answer, “Yes, children” or “Yes, children and grandchildren” on question 40. Numbers, rather than percentages, displayed below.

Response Number

Yes, children 107 Yes, children and grandchildren 14

Yes, grandchildren 5 No 148

42. RECORD GENDER

Response Percentage Female 58% Male 42%

Documents

Liberty Public Schools - BoardDocs, a Diligent Brand...process will not be difficult, while also building rapport with the interviewer – rapport that will be important when the questions