2004 Customer Satisfaction Survey (PDF, 566 KB) - TEA - Home ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

School Finance and Fiscal Analysis Table 69 Satisfaction with School Finance and Fiscal Analysis Services Average Score (1-5) Strongly Disagree 1 Percentage Responding Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree 5 2 3 4 Superintendents (n=523) 4.09 0.8 2.3 8.4 63.9 24.7 Business Managers (n=484) 4.02 0.6 3.1 8.5 69.4 18.4 Principals (n=1,383) 3.62 1.2 4.3 33.0 54.4 7.1 Teachers and Staff (n=1,890) 3.18 4.8 12.5 46.6 31.5 4.5 • Respondents were asked to rate their level of agreement with the statement, “I am satisfied with the services I receive from School Finance and Fiscal Analysis: State Funding and Financial Audits” (see Table 69). Based on average responses, superintendents (4.09) had the strongest levels of agreement with the statement. Ratings of superintendents were followed by business managers (4.02), principals (3.62), and teachers and staff (3.18). • The combined percentage of superintendents that either agreed (63.9 percent) or strongly agreed (24.7 percent) with the statement that they were satisfied with the services they received from School Finance and Fiscal Analysis was 88.6 percent. • The combined percentage of business managers that either agreed (69.4 percent) or strongly agreed (18.4 percent) with the statement that they were satisfied with the services they received from School Finance and Fiscal Analysis was 87.8 percent. • The combined percentage of principals that either agreed (54.4 percent) or strongly agreed (7.1 percent) with the statement that they were satisfied with the services they received from School Finance and Fiscal Analysis was 61.5 percent. • The combined percentage of teachers and staff that either agreed (31.5 percent) or strongly agreed (4.5 percent) with the statement that they were satisfied with the services they received from School Finance and Fiscal Analysis was 36.0 percent. Survey Research Center, University Of North Texas 81
Strategy and Grants Management Table 70 Satisfaction with Strategy and Grants Management Services Department Average Percentage Responding Score (1-5) Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Disagree 1 Strongly Agree 5 2 3 4 Superintendents (n=507) 3.76 1.0 5.3 21.5 61.1 11.0 Business Managers (n=417) 3.83 0.5 3.1 19.4 66.4 10.6 Principals (n=1,394) 3.62 0.7 3.9 34.8 53.4 7.2 Teachers and Staff (n=1,790) 3.32 1.7 6.3 54.7 32.3 4.9 • Respondents were asked to rate their level of agreement with the statement, “I am satisfied with the services I receive from Strategy and Grants Management: Strategic Planning, Discretionary Grants, and Formula Grants” (see Table 70). Based on average responses, business managers (3.83) had the strongest levels of agreement with the statement. Ratings of business managers were followed by superintendents (3.76), principals (3.62), and teachers and staff (3.32). • The combined percentage of superintendents that either agreed (61.1 percent) or strongly agreed (11.0 percent) with the statement that they were satisfied with the services they received from Strategy and Grants Management was 72.1 percent. • The combined percentage of business managers that either agreed (66.4 percent) or strongly agreed (10.6 percent) with the statement that they were satisfied with the services they received from Strategy and Grants Management was 77.0 percent. • The combined percentage of principals that either agreed (53.4 percent) or strongly agreed (7.2 percent) with the statement that they were satisfied with the services they received from Strategy and Grants Management was 60.6 percent. • The combined percentage of teachers and staff that either agreed (32.3 percent) or strongly agreed (4.9 percent) with the statement that they were satisfied with the services they received from Strategy and Grants Management was 37.2 percent. Survey Research Center, University Of North Texas 82
Page 1 and 2:
2004 Survey of Customer Satisfactio
Page 3 and 4:
VII. TEA WEBSITE ..................
Page 5 and 6:
LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Customer Pop
Page 7 and 8:
Table 54 Visited TEA Website for Da
Page 9 and 10:
II. METHODOLOGY Instrument TEA desi
Page 11 and 12:
There appears to have been some dif
Page 13 and 14:
ESC Region 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08
Page 15 and 16:
ESC Region 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08
Page 17 and 18:
ESC Region 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08
Page 19 and 20:
• ESC Region 01 02 03 04 05 06 07
Page 21 and 22:
Table 8 Method of Contacting TEA Fo
Page 23 and 24:
Table 9 Method of Contacting TEA Fo
Page 25 and 26:
Table 10 Method of Contacting TEA F
Page 27 and 28:
Table 11 Method of Contacting TEA F
Page 29 and 30:
Table 13 Methods Used to Contact TE
Page 31 and 32:
Accountability and Data Quality Tab
Page 33 and 34:
School Finance and Fiscal Analysis
Page 35 and 36:
Operations and Fiscal Management Ta
Page 37 and 38: Table 21 Methods Used to Contact TE
Page 39 and 40: Table 23 TEA Provides Reliable and
Page 41 and 42: Table 25 TEA is Responsive to E-mai
Page 43 and 44: Process Table 27 Contacts are Usual
Page 45 and 46: Table 29 My Complaint Would be Addr
Page 47 and 48: Principals • The combined percent
Page 49 and 50: Table 32 Overall Satisfaction with
Page 53 and 54: Table 36 Effectiveness of Electroni
Page 55 and 56: Table 38 TEA Program Guidance/Curri
Page 57 and 58: Table 40 TEA Grant Information is R
Page 59 and 60: Overall Satisfaction with Informati
Page 65 and 66: VI. TEA STRATEGIC PLANNING Table 47
Page 67 and 68: VII. TEA WEBSITE Table 48 Visited T
Page 69 and 70: Table 50 Visited TEA Website for As
Page 71 and 72: Table 52 Visited TEA Website for Te
Page 73 and 74: Table 54 Visited TEA Website for Da
Page 75 and 76: Table 56 Visited TEA Website for Ed
Page 77 and 78: Table 58 Visited TEA Website for Sc
Page 79 and 80: Component Ratings Table 60 Easy to
Page 81 and 82: Table 62 Website Contains Clear Inf
Page 83 and 84: VIII. OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH TEA
Page 85 and 86: Table 66 Satisfaction with Standard
Page 87: Interventions and Special Investiga
Page 91 and 92: Commissioner Table 72 Satisfaction
Page 93 and 94: Agency Table 74 Overall Satisfactio
Page 99 and 100: IX. CONCLUSIONS The findings from t
Page 101 and 102: APPENDIX A: SURVEY INSTRUMENT Surve
Page 103 and 104: Infrastructure, Information Systems
Page 105 and 106: F. Overall Satisfaction I am satisf
Page 107 and 108: APPENDIX B: POLICY ISSUES Survey Re
Page 109 and 110: TEA Website As a grant accountant f
Page 111 and 112: Principals: Gifted and Talented Exi
Page 113 and 114: Too much testing. Observation Proto
Page 115 and 116: an equity issue in Texas and this i
Page 117 and 118: certification for this has been dis
Page 119 and 120: Special Education Testing State Man
Page 121 and 122: More funding for Alternative School
Page 123 and 124: nothing to entice new educators in
Page 125 and 126: Teacher Pay/ Benefits 747 5 Health
Page 127 and 128: Cutbacks to health insurance for te
Page 129 and 130: Insisting that all students be in g
Page 131 and 132: they can better serve the needs of
Page 133 and 134: I think we have to modify too much
Page 135 and 136: as the SAT/ACT and additional AP te
Page 137 and 138: and I feel that quality teaching ha
Page 139 and 140:
ural and inner city schools without
Page 141 and 142:
Teacher Pay/ Benefits Teacher Healt
Page 143 and 144:
We need a TEA contact for librarian
Page 145 and 146:
Accountability With the present acc
Page 147 and 148:
Parental Involvement/ Responsibilit
Page 149 and 150:
use them in the classroom! Not an e
Page 151 and 152:
acceptance, we get students to the
Page 153 and 154:
our district just robs us somewhere
Page 155 and 156:
APPENDIX C: ADDITIONAL COMMENTS Sur
Page 157 and 158:
number of people Please put back th
Page 159 and 160:
demanding quality and accountabilit
Page 161 and 162:
our needs. The feedback I gave you
Page 163 and 164:
TEA - Unknowledgeable / Not Helpful
Page 165 and 166:
Develop and implement accountabilit
Page 167 and 168:
I was very disappointed that I neve
Page 169 and 170:
solutions. I think Region 10 and TE
Page 171 and 172:
It just seems that I have to wade t
Page 173 and 174:
Info - More Accurate / Clear info,
Page 175 and 176:
Testing Requirements The TAKS testi
Page 177 and 178:
TEA - Not Effective / Unrealistic G
Page 179 and 180:
have never happened if this monitor
Page 181 and 182:
TEA must keep itself separate from
Page 183:
esponsibilities, salaries, procedur
show all

2004 Customer Satisfaction Survey (PDF, 566 KB) - TEA - Home ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?