Superintendent unveils regional structure and new organizational chart for Memphis Shelby County Schools
Loading...
Summary
Interim Superintendent Roderick Richmond presented a regionalization plan and updated organizational chart aimed at localized leadership, curriculum alignment and stronger feeder patterns across four geographic regions.
Interim Superintendent Roderick Richmond presented a restructured organizational chart and a shift from performance networks to four geographic regions at the Memphis Shelby County Schools board meeting on July 29. The proposal creates regional superintendents, instructional leadership coaches and local offices intended to align curriculum K–12, improve community engagement and distribute resources by feeder pattern.
Richmond described the change as a move from last year’s seven performance networks—organized by letter grade—toward geographically aligned regions to reduce travel time for supervisors, create clearer local contact points and improve facility planning. He said regional leaders will oversee “ecosystems of support” that include instructional coaches and regional advisories and will focus on feeder‑pattern strength, community investment, and equity of programming.
The superintendent named regional superintendents and instructional leadership coaches; he said the selection process involved panels and multiple tasks and that candidates largely had prior network leadership experience. Richmond said the 10 instructional leadership coach positions were included in last year’s budget but not previously filled, and that the district had recruited some candidates from outside the system.
Richmond said each region will have scorecards and targets that cascade to schools and principals—he cited a district goal to increase proficiency in elementary ELA as an example—and said research, evaluation and accountability will track progress. He described planned supports for high‑need “eyes‑on” schools, plans to repurpose underused facilities as regional hubs, and the creation of advisory councils and regional site‑based decision making.
Board members asked detailed questions. Board member Porter asked how regional superintendents would be held accountable; Richmond replied the system will use scorecards with school‑level targets and that research and evaluation staff would support those expectations. Board member McKissick asked how the district would communicate the changes to restore community trust; Richmond said a communications rollout is planned and regional offices will offer local entry points for parents and teachers. Board member Williams emphasized the need for consistent, timely curriculum materials across classrooms; Richmond said lesson plans and PowerPoint materials were prepared and distributed to reduce teacher planning burdens.
Other board members raised concerns about choice, student mobility and facilities. Richmond said regionalization does not remove school choice or open enrollment; rather it aims to strengthen neighborhood feeder patterns so families can find strong options close to home. He also noted plans to repurpose Ridgeway annex as a regional office and virtual school hub.
Richmond and board members said next steps include posting the full organizational chart and academic plan, bringing principals and additional leadership announcements in August, and implementing scorecards and regional advisory structures. The presentation did not require an immediate board vote; Richmond asked staff to return with follow‑up materials and operational details.
Ending: The board received the regionalization presentation and asked staff for follow‑up on communication plans, scorecards and the implementation timeline ahead of the fall semester.
