Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Continuous Improvement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rochester Public Schools outlines two‑phase overhaul of school improvement planning
Summary
District staff presented a two‑phase School Continuous Improvement (SCIP 2) process that shifts more goal‑setting to school sites, ties plans to the recently approved balanced budget model and builds in more frequent data‑driven check‑ins. Staff said an initial "beta" launch will start next year with fuller implementation to follow.
Rochester Public School District staff told the school board at a Jan. 14 study session that they will move the district’s school continuous improvement process into a two‑phase model that increases site discretion while providing stronger district supports.
Superintendent Kent Pickell opened the presentation and said staff would turn the work over to district research and improvement leaders. “I’m going to be very brief and then I’m going to turn it over to Dr. Peter Ruck,” Pickell said.
District leaders said the redesign — described as SCIP 2 — will begin with a lighter “2 Beta” process for the coming school year, followed by a fuller SCIP 2 rollout. The new structure will put a small set of board‑approved performance measures at the top (separate measures for elementary, middle and high school), then allow each school to set a three‑year improvement goal tied to those measures, select improvement initiatives, and define action steps and progress indicators to monitor implementation.
The board heard that sites will receive more district support on initiative selection, but that the district will remain directive for schools with low or declining outcomes. District staff said progress indicators — for example, ninth‑grade credit attainment as an early warning for on‑time graduation — will be used to track intermediate progress toward longer‑term outcomes.
Dr. Peter Ruck, director of research and improvement, described the teams’ engagement with site leaders. “The interview process for the site leaders really focused in on the principals and those principles being essentially the chair of the SCIP team,” Ruck said, noting the interviews were one‑on‑one to allow candid feedback.
Staff summarized Wave 1 feedback from site leaders (approximately 31 interviews): district complexity that slows site progress; unclear progress tracking; inflexibility under the current model; limited data literacy and tool mastery; and scheduling constraints that make sustained implementation difficult. Gretchen Ocasio, coordinator for project management, told the board the interviews ran 45 to 60 minutes and produced common themes staff are addressing in the redesign.
Staff said SCIP 2 will embed data practices in the district calendar to make needs‑assessment results and screening windows available at times that inform planning. The redesign also seeks to align SCIP with the balanced budget model the board approved last week so schools can better tie goals to resources, and to reduce duplication between SCIP and federally required Title I planning. Staff said they plan to integrate new software tools (AlloView was mentioned) and to offer more frequent, smaller planning cycles so schools can refine goals midcycle rather than wait a year.
District staff described implementation pacing as the primary practical constraint: the beta version will begin this spring with lighter needs assessments because many staff time windows are already committed (curriculum adoptions, building priorities). Full implementation requires more planning time and tool development and is expected in subsequent school years.
Board members asked about parent and family engagement, site variability, and capacity building. Staff said they will include family measures in needs assessments and encourage parent participation on site SCIP teams while noting some districts mandate parent representatives and others do not. Staff also described a spectrum of site readiness: some schools have advanced distributed leadership and have sought more autonomy; others want more district direction.
The presentation tied several operational decisions to SCIP 2 design: moving some major survey windows to better align with planning dates, running two formal site planning days (an initial prep and a later revisit), and using centralized data packets so principals have consistent information. Staff said the district will continue to build principals’ data literacy and to offer central office expertise (for example, in MTSS and literacy) to avoid requiring each site to reinvent practice.
Board members and staff said the new design is intended to preserve effective elements of the existing SCIP while making progress more visible and better resourced. Staff emphasized that SCIP 2 is intended to be iterative and to embed continuous learning rather than represent a one‑time rewrite of site plans.
Looking ahead, staff said they will bring draft performance measures to the board for approval in the coming months and will return with further implementation details and timelines as the beta launch proceeds.
