--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
spacer Return to Web VersionspacerReturn to Web Version

National Charter School Conference
Conference Evaluation Report
1999



Section 1 : Pre-Conference Evaluation Report
Section 2 : Conference Evaluation Report
Section 3 : Workshop Evaluation Report
Section 4 : Appendix




Conference Evaluation Report

At the conclusion of the U.S. Department of Education’s National Charter School Conference (March, 1999), respondents were asked to complete a conference evaluation form. Conference participants completing the form were asked to give their affiliation, rate 13 aspects of the conference, rate the conference overall, answer several yes/no questions regarding the conference, and rate 7 conference features. In addition, they were asked to list the 3 workshops that they found to be the most useful as well as the 3 workshops they found to be the least useful. This report summarizes the 154 forms that were submitted by conference participants.

Summary of Findings
The sound system received the largest percentage of ratings of fair or poor – 10 percent.

Affiliation

The participants were asked to identify their affiliation from among 11 choices. Two participants did not mark an affiliation on their forms.

Twenty-eight of the participants marked two affiliations on their form. All affiliations marked by the respondents are shown in Table C-1. This results in a total figure in that table that exceeds the total number of respondents.



Almost three-quarters of the respondents identified themselves as affiliated with a school. Nine percent were administrators at the local, state, or federal level. Six percent were from professional organizations or technical assistance providers. (See Figure C-1)

Fifty-four (or 30 percent) of these participants identified themselves as school developers or founders. Twenty-eight of the participants identified themselves as teachers, 21 marked other school staff (business manager, social worker, program coordinators, and counselor) and 24 marked other (Board member, researcher, professor, and parent).

The remaining participants were fairly evenly distributed among the other categories. (See Table C-1)

Table C-1
Respondent Affiliation
 
Overall Affiliation		  
Affiliation marked on form

Number of Respondents

Percent of Respondents
School (129) School Developer

23

12.8%
School Founder

31

17.2
Principal

26

14.4
Teacher

28

15.6
Other School Staff

21

11.7
Professional/Technical (11) Professional association official

5

2.8
Technical assistance provider

6

3.3
Administration (16) Local district administrator

9

5.0
State administrator

5

2.8
Federal administrator

2

1.1
Other (24) Other

24

13.3
  Total

180

100.0%


Overall Conference Ratings

Participants completing the conference evaluation form were asked to rate 13 aspects of the conference, as well as to rate the conference overall. They were to indicate their rating of each aspect from Excellent to Poor (or N/A). The number of responses for each item ranged from 41 for the pre-conference symposium to 146 for registration and pre-conference communication and breakout sessions. The overall conference rating was completed by 137 respondents. (See Table C-2)

Table C-2
Overall Conference Ratings
 

Conference Aspect

 

Exclnt

 

V. good

 

Good

 

Fair

 

Poor

 

NA

 

# Resp.

% VG
or
Excelnt

% Fair or Poor
Registration and pre-conference communication

57

45

22

15

7

8

146

70%

15%
Pre-conference symposium for chartering entities

16

18

3

3

1

113

41

83%

10%
Introduction/opening general session

41

48

34

12

6

13

141

63%

13%
State team meetings

35

47

34

16

7

15

139

59%

17%
Technology room

13

25

17

4

4

91

63

60%

13%
Breakout sessions

40

65

29

10

2

8

146

72%

8%
Role-alike networking sessions

11

17

18

7

5

96

58

48%

21%
Reception

29

38

27

5

1

54

100

67%

6%
Networking breakfast sessions

27

33

27

11

1

55

99

61%

12%
Breakfast panel for new charter schools

20

16

8

2

0

108

46

78%

4%
Tuesday luncheon/Secretary Riley’s address

68

50

14

5

1

16

138

86%

4%
Breakfast panel on ensuring quality

34

27

8

7

0

78

76

80%

9%
Closing session

25

16

9

3

0

101

53

77%

6%
OVERALL CONFERENCE EVALUATION

47

54

28

4

4

17

137

74%

6%


When the respondents were asked to give the overall conference a rating, 74 percent indicated that they felt the conference was either excellent or very good. (See Figure C-2)



The aspects of the conference that received the greatest percentage of ratings of either excellent or very good (80 percent or more) were: the Tuesday luncheon/Secretary Riley’s address (86 percent), pre-conference symposium for chartering entities (83 percent), and the breakfast panel on ensuring quality (80 percent). (See Figure C-2)

There were three aspects that received 15 percent or greater ratings of either fair or poor. These were the role-alike networking sessions (21 percent), state team meetings (17 percent), and registration and pre-conference communication (15 percent). (See Figure C-2)

Answering Questions about the Conference

The conference participants who completed the conference evaluation form were asked to answer seven questions regarding the conference. The respondents were asked to answer yes, somewhat, or no to each question. The individual components of this question were overall very positive. (See Table C-3)

Table C-3
Questions about the Conference
 

Yes

Somewhat

No

NA

# Resp.

% YES
Did this conference meet your expectations?

110

34

7

3

154

71%
Would you recommend this conference to colleagues?

130

14

6

4

154

84%
Will you be able to apply lessons from the conference in your school or job?

127

22

2

3

154

82%
Do you feel the conference was well organized?

126

18

7

3

154

82%
Are you interested in staying in touch with the conference’s presenters and attendees?

115

33

3

3

154

75%
Do you feel this conference was cost-effective in terms of your time and money?

117

26

6

5

154

76%
Do you feel this conference met your objectives?

102

40

8

4

154

66%


Three questions elicited a response of YES at a rate that was greater than 80 percent. These were "Would you recommend this conference to colleagues?" (84 percent), "Will you be able to apply lessons from the conference in your school or job" (82 percent), and "Do you feel the conference was well organized?" (82 percent). (See Figure C-3)

The question "Do you feel this conference met your objectives?" received the fewest responses of YES (66 percent). (See Figure C-3)

Ratings of Conference Features

Respondents were given a list of 7 features of the conference and were ask to rate these features from Excellent to Poor. The number of responses to this item ranged from 142 to 149. (See Table C-4)

Table C-4
Conference Features
 

 

Exclnt

 

V. good

 

Good

 

Fair

 

Poor

 

NA

 

# Resp.

% VG or Exclnt

% Fair or poor
Timeliness of subject(s)

64

54

24

5

1

6

148

80%

4%
Evaluation of presenters

39

66

33

8

1

8

147

71%

6%
Sound system

37

55

40

14

1

7

147

63%

10%
Hotel/meeting rooms

69

53

17

8

1

6

148

82%

6%
Service of hotel staff

76

44

16

5

1

12

142

85%

4%
Service of Department staff

73

56

13

1

0

11

143

90%

1%
Coffee, refreshments, and meals

51

52

35

10

1

5

149

69%

7%


Four conference features were given ratings of very good or excellent by 80 percent or more of the respondents. These were the service of Department staff (90 percent), service of hotel staff (85 percent), hotel/meeting rooms (82 percent), and timeliness of subject(s) (80 percent). (See Figure C-4)

The sound system received the largest percentage of ratings of fair or poor – 10 percent. (See Figure C-4)



Feedback on Workshops

Conference attendees were asked to indicate up to three workshops that were the most useful and the least useful to them. These responses were analyzed and a positive and negative rating assigned in the following manner: Three points were assigned for each first choice, two for second and one for third. The overall ranking subtracts any negative rating from a positive rating. Keep in mind that an overall rating of zero just indicates that the most useful and least useful ratings were equal.

While not all of the workshops were mentioned on the Conference Evaluation forms, 69 were mentioned as most useful workshops and 45 were mentioned as least useful.

Among the workshops with ratings, there were six that had an overall rating of greater than 25. These were: Building Better Governance (28), Fundraising (29), Gathering Resources: Entrepreneurial Leadership (26), Parental Involvement in Charter Schools: Dreams, Dilemmas, and Decisions (26), Special Education in Charters (30), and Standards and Assessment Workshop: Aligning Curriculum, Standards and Assessments (33). Only one workshop received a negative rating of –10 or greater. This was the Title I workshop that received an overall rating of –11. See Table C-5 below for more information.

Table C-5
Feedback on Workshops
 

Most useful workshops

Least useful workshops

  
Workshop Title

First choice

Second choice

Third choice

Positive Rating

First choice

Second choice

Third choice

Negative Rating

Overall Rating
Academic Accountability

1

1

  

5

  

  

  

  

5
Accountability Plans Created by Charters: The Colorado Model

3

2

1

14

2

2

  

10

4
Accreditation in Charter Schools  

  

  

  

1

  

  

3

-3
Alternative Approaches to Teacher Certification and Evaluation in Charter Schools

1

  

2

5

  

  

1

1

4
Arizona’s Charter School Program: An Overview And Discussion Of Its Developments And Emerging Issues  

1

1

3

1

  

  

3

0
Associations  

  

2

2

  

  

  

  

2
Avoiding Burnout: Leadership Strategies for Succeeding over the Long-Haul

2

7

4

24

3

  

  

9

15
Building Better Governance

6

7

2

34

2

  

  

6

28
Building Positive Relations With Charter Granting Entities  

1

  

2

2

  

  

6

-4
CDFI - Community Dev. Finance Institutions

2

2

  

10

  

1

  

2

8
Charter School Finance: The Results of Recent Studies  

1

  

2

1

1

2

7

-5
Charter School for At-Risk Populations

5

3

2

23

7

  

1

22

1
Charter School Inspection, British Style: A New Approach in Massachusetts

1

5

1

14

  

  

  

  

14
Charter School Researchers                  
Charter Schools and The IRS: A Guide to Gaining Non-profit Status

2

  

1

7

1

  

  

3

4
Charter Schools Website Feedback  

  

1

1

  

  

  

  

1
Charter Solicitation, Application, Selection

3

  

  

9

  

  

  

  

9
Chartering Agencies

1

  

  

3

  

  

  

  

3
Chartering Granting Entities  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  
Closing Session

2

  

  

6

  

  

  

  

6
Communicating the Success of Your School  

1

  

2

  

  

1

1

1
Comprehensive School Reform: External Technical Assistance and Federal Support for Changing Whole Schools

1

1

1

6

1

  

  

3

3
Connecting Charter School and Other Public Schools

1

1

  

5

3

1

  

11

-6
Considering Dissemination Grants

1

  

1

4

  

3

  

6

-2
Contracting with Education Management Companies in Charter Schools

1

2

1

8

  

  

  

  

8
Creating Charter Schools with Diverse Students – Multiracial Charter Schools

3

1

  

11

  

  

  

  

11
Creating Disciplined Environments and Appropriate Policies

3

2

  

13

4

1

  

14

-1
Curriculum Development Fellowships: The Council For Basic Education Projects

1

3

1

10

  

1

  

2

8
Deregulation Versus Non Regulation: Finding Balance and Accountability  

  

  

  

1

  

  

3

-3
Educating a Broad Constituency About Charter Schools

3

3

2

17

  

  

  

  

17
Emerging Relationships  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  
Ensuring Quality in Charter Schools

5

  

4

19

1

  

  

3

16
Evaluation

3

  

2

11

1

  

  

3

8
Federal Start-up Grants  

  

  

  

2

  

  

6

-6
Federal Technical Assistance Resources

2

  

  

6

  

  

  

  

6
Feedback Session/Focus Group – Federal Program Guidance  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  
Financial Planning

2

3

1

13

  

  

  

  

13
Financing Charter School Facilities Through Community Development Financial Institutions

1

2

3

10

1

  

  

3

7
Fiscal & Operational Accountability  

1

  

2

1

  

  

3

-1
Fundraising

7

4

2

31

  

1

  

2

29
Gathering Resources: Entrepreneurial Leadership

5

3

5

26

  

  

  

  

26
General Admissions, Recruitment and Lotteries

3

1

1

12

1

  

1

4

8
Healthy Eating—School Nutrition Programs  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  
Innovative Pedagogy in Charter Schools, Session #1

2

1

8

16

2

  

  

6

10
Lessons For Charter Schools To Take From Previous Education Reforms

3

4

3

20

  

  

  

  

20
Limited English Proficient (LEP) Issues in Charter Schools  

  

1

1

  

  

  

  

1
Managing External Communications  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  
Meeting Leadership Needs for Beginning Schools: Two Model Programs  

  

1

1

  

  

  

  

1
Meeting the Equity Challenge in Charter Schools  

2

2

6

1

  

1

4

2
Networking Breakfast

1

2

2

9

2

  

  

6

3
Outreach Efforts To Include Diverse Communities In Charter Schools

1

  

  

3

  

  

  

  

3
Parental Involvement in Charter Schools: Dreams, Dilemmas, and Decisions

5

7

2

31

1

1

  

5

26
Partnerships: Business/Employer-Linked Charter Schools: Redefining Public Education for a New Era

1

1

1

6

2

  

  

6

0
Partnerships: Higher Education  

1

2

4

2

  

  

6

-2
Partnerships: Museums and Community Resources

2

1

  

8

  

  

  

  

8
Policymakers  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  
Portfolios In Charter Schools

2

1

1

9

2

1

  

8

1
Project-Based Learning

1

1

2

7

1

  

  

3

4
Public Responsibilities of Charter Schools: Maintaining Non-Sectarian Nature of Charter Schools/and Considering the Conversion of Private Schools

1

1

  

5

  

  

  

  

5
Public Service Charter Schools

1

2

  

7

  

  

  

  

7
Reaching Out: Charter School Strategies for Influencing the Traditional Public School System

1

  

  

3

  

  

  

  

3
Residential Schools and Charters for Homeless Students  

  

2

2

  

  

  

  

2
Ripple Effects: Emerging Relationships Between Charter Schools and the Districts That Surround Them  

1

2

4

  

2

  

4

0
SEA Coordinators of Charter Programs  

  

  

  

  

1

  

2

-2
Setting up the Business Office of a Charter School  

2

  

4

2

  

2

8

-4
Social Services  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  
Special Education and Charters

9

5

3

40

2

2

  

10

30
Stages of Charter School Development  

  

  

  

  

  

1

1

-1
Standards and Assessment Workshop: Aligning Curriculum, Standards and Assessments

10

7

4

48

2

4

1

15

33
Standards and Experiential Education: Students’ Perspective

4

3

2

20

  

  

  

  

20
State Team Meetings

5

1

1

18

4

1

  

14

4
Strategic Planning

1

5

1

14

  

1

  

2

12
Strategies for Success in the Rural School

2

1

  

8

  

  

  

  

8
Strategies for Success in Urban Settings

1

  

3

6

  

  

  

  

6
Teacher-Coop  

1

  

2

  

  

  

  

2
Technology Demonstration: Ask Eric And Other On-line Resources  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  
Technology: Innovative Uses – Session #1

3

5

2

21

3

3

  

15

6
Technology: Planning and Paying For It

2

1

  

8

  

  

  

  

8
The Role of State Charter School Associations  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  
Those Planning New Charter Schools  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  
Three Models for Chartering Agencies  

3

1

7

  

  

  

  

7
Title I

3

1

  

11

6

2

  

22

-11
Using Private Capital for Charter School Facilities

1

  

2

5

  

1

  

2

3
What I Wish Someone Had Told Me Before I Opened  

8

3

19

  

  

  

  

19
Number of workshops with ratings  

69

  

  

  

  

45

  
Back to Table of Contents