Charleston Teacher Alliance

2013-2014 Survey of School Climate

And Administrative Leadership

Survey Facts
This survey was developed and reviewed by CTA Leadership.
The survey was conducted between March 30
th
and April 30
th
.
1,000+ teachers participated in this survey.
This is the ninth survey conducted by the CTA addressing adinistrative leadership.
Survey vervie!
This survey has !our sections. The !irst section !ocuses on school cliate and wor"ing conditions. The
ne#t three sections !ocus on the adinistrative leadership o! principals, the district superintendent, and
the area superintendents.
School Climate
$%& o! the teachers surveyed viewed their school as having a positive cliate. This is a 10& increase
copared to last year.
'lanning tie reains inconsistent throughout the district with 1%& o! teachers surveyed having less
than one hour o! planning tie per wee" while ((& o! teachers reported having three or ore hours
per wee".
The aount o! hours teachers are wor"ing continues to be a a)or concern. ($& o! the teachers
reported wor"ing over !i!ty hours per wee". %*& o! the teachers surveyed thought that the hours
re+uired were reasonable.
"rincipals
Alost all principal scores iproved this year, and several principal scores iproved by over 10&
when copared to last year. The highest ar"s cae in the areas o! conducting productive eetings
,$3& positive-, and classroo observations ,*0& positive-. The lowest scores cae in areas o!
teachers not having to worry about adinistrative retaliation ,(.& positive-, and /aculty 0enate
e!!ectiveness ,%$& positive-.
$1& o! the teachers surveyed indicated that they have an e!!ective principal. This was a 10&
iproveent !ro last year. Three adinistrators had at least a .0& approval rating. This included
the principals !ro 2ursey, 3a"land and 4ando. The principals !ro Acadeic Magnet, 5elle 2all,
6rayton, 2arbor 7iew, 8aes 9sland Charter, 8ennie Moore, 'inc"ney, and 0tono all received 100&
ratings !or principal e!!ectiveness.
3nly two schools had positive principal e!!ectiveness scores at 33& or below ,2unley 'ar" and
0pring!ield-. This is a signi!icant drop !ro last year when eleven schools scored below this level.
5ased on the survey results, a healthy a)ority o! the surveyed teachers !ro these schools also
indicated issues with adinistrators retaliating against sta!!. :etaliation was also a concern at Angel
3a", ;arrett, 2aut ;ap, and 8aes 9sland <0 where less than 33& o! those surveyed !elt they did not
have to worry about retaliation !or disagreeing, or reporting a concern.
Area Superintendents
=early *3& o! those surveyed were aware o! which Area 0uperintendent represented their school. This
was an *& iproveent !ro last year. 2owever, only (1& o! those surveyed understand the role and
duties o! the position. This led any survey coents to +uestion the need>use!ulness o! this position.
#istrict Superintendent
3verall, the 6istrict 0uperintendent?s ratings were i#ed. The 0uperintendent saw inor drops in
teacher accessibility and see"ing teacher input. 5ased on survey coents teachers e#pressed doubt in
whether teacher !eedbac" was genuinely sought or considered be!ore a"ing decisions such as the
5:96;< progra. Minor increases were seen in teacher counication and budgeting. The
0uperintendent?s largest increase was in general e!!ectiveness with an iproveent o! 1&.
#istrict Superintendent
,'ercentage o! respondents who reported positively-
200$ 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
@7isible and accessible to teacher 1*& 1A& 13& 11& (*& ((&
@<!!ectively counicates with teachers $$& $%& $A& $.& 1.& $3&
@0ee"s teacher input A*& A1& (*& 11& A(& A3&
@<liinated nonessential spending A(& 3(& A1& A*& 3(& 3$&
@An e!!ective leader $3& $%& $0& $(& 11& $%&