1. Columbus Education Association Time Waste Survey
Prepared for Dr. John Stanford
Monday, Aug. 13, 2018
Time Waste Survey conducted by the Columbus Education Association

2. Time Waste Survey conducted by the Columbus Education Association
Demographic Summary
At the May 2018 Joint Labor-Management Meeting, Dr. Stanford suggested gathering data for redundant, duplicative and/or avoidable tasks to address for the school year.
CEA utilized a similar survey administered in 2014 as the template for the current survey. The questions were updated to reflect changes in the current education landscape.
When applicable, results gathered in 2014 that are included in this survey to represent baseline data.
Time Waste Survey conducted by the Columbus Education Association

3. Demographic Summary (Con’t.)
2014 (Q1)
2018 (Q3)
Number of CEA members who were sent the survey
3,243
3,903
Number of CEA members who began the survey
1,348
1,393
Number of survey questions*
253
297
Response rate (includes partial responses)
41.4 %
35.6 %
Number of complete responses
1,068
1,088
Completion rate
79.2
78.4
Average completion time (in minutes) - 12
Number of schools without at least one respondent
Combined years of service of all survey respondents
18,800+
20,011
*Due to the utilization of skip logic in the survey, respondents were unable to answer all survey questions.
Time Waste Survey conducted by the Columbus Education Association

4. Time Waste Survey conducted by the Columbus Education Association
Grade Cards
Survey participants were asked whether or not they entered grades for the third quarter of the school year.
Respondents that answered affirmatively were asked which grade level (ES or MS/HS) they entered grades for.
Time Waste Survey conducted by the Columbus Education Association

5. Time Waste Survey conducted by the Columbus Education Association
Grade Cards
To complete the elementary standards-based report card, ES teachers:
Provide numerical achievement and effort “grades” for skills and subjects taught that quarter
Include multiple student-specific comments for their students
HS and MS teachers’ grades are automatically calculated as teachers enter grades in the Infinite Campus (IC) gradebook.
Time Waste Survey conducted by the Columbus Education Association

6. Time Waste Survey conducted by the Columbus Education Association
Grade Cards: Time
ES teachers were asked to estimate the amount of time (in hours) spent completing grade cards.
Time Waste Survey conducted by the Columbus Education Association

7. Time Waste Survey conducted by the Columbus Education Association
Grade Cards: Comments
Another time-consuming feature of the ES grade cards is the amount of time spent writing comments for each skill or subject taught during the quarter.
ES administrators may or may not require their teachers to create personalized, student-specific comments instead of using general ones depending on whether or not a student is at or above grade level.
Time Waste Survey conducted by the Columbus Education Association

8. Time Waste Survey conducted by the Columbus Education Association
Grade Cards: Comments
Time Waste Survey conducted by the Columbus Education Association

9. Time Waste Survey conducted by the Columbus Education Association
Grade Cards
Teachers whose administrators require them to personalize comments for students who are below, at or above grade level spend 20 percent longer completing their grade cards on average than teachers whose administrators allow them to use general comments for their students.
Time Waste Survey conducted by the Columbus Education Association

10. Time Waste Survey conducted by the Columbus Education Association
Grade Cards: Comments
Time Waste Survey conducted by the Columbus Education Association

11. Time Waste Survey conducted by the Columbus Education Association
Grade Cards: Comments
Time Waste Survey conducted by the Columbus Education Association

12. Grade Cards: Entry Window
ES survey participants were asked when they began entering their report card grades and comments.
Nearly one-third of all ES teachers begin to enter their grades after the quarter ends.
The calendar which sets the dates for grade entry for the school year provides for less time for ES grade entry when compared to the school year.
Time Waste Survey conducted by the Columbus Education Association

13. Time Waste Survey conducted by the Columbus Education Association
Special Education
In early October of 2014, CCS agreed to the terms and conditions of a Corrective Action Plan (CAP) with ODE.
The CAP increased the time required to accomplish many facets of Special Education Teachers’ work, including, but not limited to:
Progress Reports
IEP writing
IEP meetings
Though the district was released from the CAP, the requirements of the plan persist.
Time Waste Survey conducted by the Columbus Education Association

14. Special Education: IEP Writing
In 2014, Special Education teachers indicated at least a ten percent increase in the amount of time spent in the process for an individual IEP compared to the first quarter of the school year.
Time Waste Survey conducted by the Columbus Education Association

15. Special Education: IEP Meetings
ES Special Education teachers report nearly one out of every four IEP meetings are held outside of their workday.
Time Waste Survey conducted by the Columbus Education Association

16. Special Education: IEP Meetings (cont.)
Special Education teachers indicated they are most often responsible for arranging coverage for their students’ IEP meetings.
Time Waste Survey conducted by the Columbus Education Association

17. Special Education: IEP Meetings (cont.)
The percentage of general education teachers who responded that they attended one or more IEP meetings during their instructional time increased by ten percent when compared to 2014.
Time Waste Survey conducted by the Columbus Education Association

18. Special Education: Progress Reports
In addition to writing IEPs and completing interim/grade entry at the ES/MS/HS level, Special Education Teachers must complete Progress Reports for each of their students eight times per year.
More than 75 percent of Special Education teachers (199 of 263) believe the amount of time required to complete Progress Reports negatively impacts instruction to their students.
Time Waste Survey conducted by the Columbus Education Association

19. ES Special Education Teachers
Time Waste Survey conducted by the Columbus Education Association

20. MS/HS Special Education Teachers
MS and HS Special Education teachers spend nearly 12 percent longer per quarter writing quarterly progress reports when compared to 2014.
When compared to ES Special Education teachers, MS and HS Special Education teachers:
Spent 13 percent less time per quarter overall writing quarterly progress reports
Spent 10 percent more time working on quarterly progress reports during the workday
Time Waste Survey conducted by the Columbus Education Association

21. Special Education: Instructional Load
Special Education teachers at every level provide instruction for multiple subjects to students at different grade levels.
This number does not include the grade levels or subjects for students who are mainstreamed.
Time Waste Survey conducted by the Columbus Education Association

22. Special Education: Instructional Load
Special Education teacher average instructional load
Subjects/ Courses Q1 2014
Subjects/ Courses Q1 2018
Grade levels
Q1 2014
Grade Levels
Q3 2018 ES
4.08
4.32
2.40
2.51 MS
3.44
3.30
2.24
2.61 HS
5.20
4.36
3.34
3.05
Time Waste Survey conducted by the Columbus Education Association

23. Time Waste Survey conducted by the Columbus Education Association
TBTs: Participation
Since the school year, it has been the expectation of the district that every teacher is a member of a Teacher Based Team (TBT).
Approximately one out of every four respondents indicated they were on multiple TBTs for varying reasons.
Time Waste Survey conducted by the Columbus Education Association

24. Time Waste Survey conducted by the Columbus Education Association
TBTs: Meeting Times
Less than two thirds of respondents indicated their TBT meets during the work day in 2014 and 2018.
Time Waste Survey conducted by the Columbus Education Association

25. TBTs: Meeting Times (cont.)
Members who responded that their TBT meets outside of the workday provided a variety of reasons why.
Time Waste Survey conducted by the Columbus Education Association

26. TBTs: Meeting Times (cont.)
Time Waste Survey conducted by the Columbus Education Association

27. TBTs: ES Workday Meeting Times
“Assignable Time” denotes ES specials and duty.
“Unassigned” time includes ES planning/ preparation time and lunch.
TBTs scheduled during assignable time nearly doubled from 2014 to 2018.
Time Waste Survey conducted by the Columbus Education Association

28. TBTs: MS Workday Meeting Times
“Assignable Time” denotes the MS duty period.
“Unassigned” time includes the MS conference period and lunch period.
TBTs scheduled during unassigned time decreased slightly from 2014 to 2018.
Time Waste Survey conducted by the Columbus Education Association

29. TBTs: HS Workday Meeting Times
“Assignable Time” denotes the MS duty period.
“Unassigned” time includes the MS conference period and lunch period.
TBTs scheduled during assignable time increased from 2014 to 2018, however, HS teachers remain the largest group of teachers required to meet in TBTs during their conference period.
Time Waste Survey conducted by the Columbus Education Association

30. TBTs: Workday Meeting Times
Time Waste Survey conducted by the Columbus Education Association

31. Third Grade Reading Guarantee
Students in grades K-3 who test “off-track” on either the KRA or MAP in the first quarter must be put on a RIMP for the duration of the school year.
Respondents who self-identified as teachers of grades K-3 were asked questions regarding the amount of time specific tasks required by the 3GRG, and how long they took during and outside of their workday.
Time Waste Survey conducted by the Columbus Education Association

32. Time Waste Survey conducted by the Columbus Education Association
RIMPs K 1 2 3
All
Students on a first quarter RIMP
11.3
12.7
9.5
15.2
12.2
Total hours spent creating RIMPS first quarter
8.4
6.9
19.1
10.8
11.0
Percentage of task accomplished during the workday
38.1%
43.2%
78.5%
40.4%
55.0%
Hours spent per quarter updating RIMPs
9.0
8.7
13.4
9.9
39.2%
46.5%
44.8%
42.3%
43.0%
Days of instruction lost due to progress monitoring
5.9
5.2
6.0
7.1
6.2 K 1 2 3
All
Students on a first quarter RIMP
11.3
12.7
9.5
15.2
12.2
Total hours spent creating RIMPS first quarter
8.4
6.9
19.1
10.8
11.0
Percentage of task accomplished during the workday
38.1%
43.2%
78.5%
40.4%
55.0%
Hours spent per quarter updating RIMPs
Days of instruction lost due to progress monitoring K 1 2 3
All
Students on a first quarter RIMP
Total hours spent creating RIMPS first quarter
Percentage of task accomplished during the workday
Hours spent per quarter updating RIMPs
Days of instruction lost due to progress monitoring K 1 2 3
All
Students on a first quarter RIMP
11.3
12.7
9.5
15.2
12.2
Total hours spent creating RIMPS first quarter
8.4
6.9
19.1
10.8
11.0
Percentage of task accomplished during the workday
38.1%
43.2%
78.5%
40.4%
55.0%
Hours spent per quarter updating RIMPs
9.0
8.7
13.4
9.9
Days of instruction lost due to progress monitoring K 1 2 3
All
Students on a first quarter RIMP
11.3
12.7
9.5
15.2
12.2
Total hours spent creating RIMPS first quarter
8.4
6.9
19.1
10.8
11.0
Percentage of task accomplished during the workday
38.1%
43.2%
78.5%
40.4%
55.0%
Hours spent per quarter updating RIMPs
9.0
8.7
13.4
9.9
39.2%
46.5%
44.8%
42.3%
43.0%
Days of instruction lost due to progress monitoring K 1 2 3
All
Students on a first quarter RIMP
11.3
12.7
9.5
15.2
12.2
Total hours spent creating RIMPS first quarter
Percentage of task accomplished during the workday
Hours spent per quarter updating RIMPs
Days of instruction lost due to progress monitoring K 1 2 3
All
Students on a first quarter RIMP
11.3
12.7
9.5
15.2
12.2
Total hours spent creating RIMPS first quarter
8.4
6.9
19.1
10.8
11.0
Percentage of task accomplished during the workday
Hours spent per quarter updating RIMPs
Days of instruction lost due to progress monitoring
Time Waste Survey conducted by the Columbus Education Association

33. Time Lost Due To Testing
Respondents who self-identified as ES classroom teachers were asked to estimate how much instructional time they lost with their students due to state and district testing.
Due to the widely varied nature of HS and MS testing schedules, estimates for instructional time lost are not included in this powerpoint.
Time Waste Survey conducted by the Columbus Education Association

34. Time Lost Due To Testing
MAP-R
MAP-M
ES WP
3GRG PM
AIR
KRA
SB 140 N CA
Total
BOY
MOY
EOY - FA SP K
2.59
2.67
2.36
2.64
2.35
2.04
17.83
3.99
1.99
41.04 1
2.00
1.97
1.81
1.87
1.95
3.25
15.58
30.43 2
1.70
1.61
1.68
1.34
1.43
1.49
3.31
18.05
0.69
31.29 3
1.79
2.15
1.40
1.55
1.67
3.59
21.20
1.75
3.33
40.38 4
1.50
1.45
1.56
1.48
3.36
2.75
15.11 5
1.37
1.17
1.21
1.25
3.52
4.47
1.51
17.27
Time Waste Survey conducted by the Columbus Education Association