The Rochester Board of Education met in a work session Thursday, Oct. 16, to hear coaching from the Council of the Great City Schools and board members from Dallas and Charlotte on student‑outcomes‑focused governance and to review draft superintendent interim guardrails on curriculum, student placement, safety and stakeholder engagement.

The board, led by President Camille Simmons, invited Council coaches Dr. Ray Hart and Cindy Ellsburn and two out‑of‑state board members—Ben Mackey of Dallas ISD and Dee Rankin of the Charlotte‑Mecklenburg School Board—to describe how setting measurable goals and guardrails altered meeting practices and local results. Mackey and Rankin described multi‑year monitoring and data routines they credited with improving student outcomes in their districts. Mackey said monthly monitoring “fundamentally changed our trajectory” in Dallas, and Rankin described “historic gains” after Charlotte‑Mecklenburg adopted shared goals and progress monitoring.

Why it matters: The board is rewriting how it will hold the superintendent accountable. Board guardrails are written limits on district actions the board does not want to see violated while the superintendent retains operational authority to reach student outcome goals. Trustees pressed staff on how the proposals would protect historically underserved students, ensure culturally responsive materials and keep families confident in Rochester schools.

What the superintendent proposed: Superintendent Rosser and staff presented three board guardrails and associated draft interim measures the administration would report against. The guardrails are (1) protect evidence‑based curriculum and equitable placement; (2) avoid conditions that compromise student or staff psychological or physical safety; and (3) include stakeholder voices in major district decisions.

Key draft interim measures the administration outlined included:
- Curriculum selection: “100% of core curricular resources selected for districtwide adoption from December 2025 to December 2028 will demonstrate evidence‑based and equitable practices,” the staff proposal reads. Rosser said the district would use the Council of the Great City Schools’ curriculum quality rubric to evaluate materials.
- Curriculum implementation: Use a district walkthrough tool to track the percentage of classrooms showing standards‑based instruction using district‑approved curriculum; the district will set baselines and targets for the December 2025–December 2028 window.
- Student placement practices: Two draft options were shown. One would audit and centralize placement criteria so 100% of schools have documented, equity‑vetted placement practices by a target date; an alternative would aim for historically underserved student groups to be represented within +/-5 percentage points of district averages by December 2028.
- Safety: Maintain 100% compliance with required safety protocols (fire drills, lockdowns, threat assessments) and reduce staff and student safety concerns as measured by the district climate survey (the presentation cited a baseline in January 2025 of ~40% of elementary students reporting they “always or usually” worry about safety).
- Stakeholder integration: Document and respond to stakeholder input for major decisions and increase the share of decisions that include analyzed, recorded input.

Board questions and concerns: Trustees pressed staff on specifics and equity implications. Highlights:
- Cultural responsiveness and special needs: Commissioner Elliott urged explicit language so curriculum choices reflect black and brown students and show contemporary role models. Rosser and the coaches said the Council rubric includes cultural‑responsiveness criteria and the administration will consider making those expectations explicit in final guardrail language. Trustees also flagged special education and multilingual (ELL) students as groups requiring explicit attention.
- Meeting cadence and oversight: Commissioners asked how fewer, more focused board meetings would preserve access to detailed information. Dallas and Charlotte board members described stepped processes—timed agendas, committee “diets,” advance distribution of reports and targeted forums—so trustees can get detailed briefings without moving operational items to full board time.
- Parental confidence and enrollment: Several trustees urged the board to address public confidence as it relates to enrollment loss (to charters and suburban/urban‑suburban agreements). Coaches suggested that a governance-level guardrail or board responsibility could be drafted to make confidence and community trust an explicit, measurable priority.
- Placement equity: Trustees asked how the administration would prevent exclusionary placement practices and the ad‑hoc concentration of students with exceptionalities in a subset of schools. Staff responded the aim is to level instructional quality across buildings so families do not feel compelled to move children to specific campuses.

Outside examples: The visitors described measurable results from their districts: Rankin summarized Charlotte‑Mecklenburg’s recent gains (reading growth of 5.2 percentage points K–8 in some grades, math gains across grade bands and sizable reductions in “F” schools); Mackey said Dallas has reduced D/F campuses to 14 out of more than 200 and now outperforms state averages for several student groups. Dr. Hart and the panel also cited Philadelphia data showing math gains and a reduction in dropouts by 2,237 students compared with the 2021–22 year.

Decisions and next steps: The board did not adopt final guardrails at the work session. Trustees agreed to move the draft guardrails and accompanying board guardrail language to the district’s Oct. 30 business meeting for further discussion and a formal vote, and staff will produce SMART (specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, time‑bound) language and baseline data before that meeting. The board did not vote on interim measures; administration will draft targets and percent baselines and return to the board.

Procedural notes: The meeting recessed into executive session earlier to discuss personnel matters under Section 105 of the Open Meetings Law; that recess was moved by Commissioner Patterson and seconded by Vice President Malloy and approved by the board. The work session adjourned on a motion by Commissioner Santiago, seconded by Commissioner Griffin.

What to watch: Final guardrail language and the administration’s SMART interim measures will be presented at the Oct. 30 business meeting. Trustees and community stakeholders asked specifically for clearer language on culturally responsive curriculum, explicit metrics for special education and multilingual learners, and measures for rebuilding public confidence and enrollment.

Ending: Board members thanked the visiting board colleagues and the Council for the Great City Schools for coaching and signaled the district will continue word‑smithing the guardrails with staff and the Council before taking final action at the business meeting.