Rochester board reviews proposed district improvement targets through 2030, including MCA and ACT benchmarks
Loading...
Summary
District staff presented proposed district‑wide continuous improvement targets tied to a new strategic plan, explaining methods for setting annual targets, head‑count translation, and differentiated school targets; board members asked about measurement, ALCs, and tracking non‑college pathways.
Rochester Public Schools staff presented proposed district improvement targets through 2030 at the Feb. 17 board meeting and asked board members to treat the item as “prep for action” before a vote scheduled for March 3.
Chief academic officer Mona Perkins and Peter Ruck, director of research and evidence, walked the board through a new goal‑setting method tied to performance measure teams. The proposal anchors district‑wide goals (reading and math proficiency on the MCA for grades 3–8, ACT benchmarks, attendance, suspensions, graduation and postsecondary enrollment) and sets differentiated annual improvement targets for individual schools based on baseline data, demographic and enrollment considerations and a margin factor that accounts for volatility at smaller schools.
Ruck explained the rationale for different annual rates by grade and subject — for example, proposed district annual improvement of about 1.6 percentage points per year for math and 1.1 for reading — and described the conversion to unduplicated head counts so schools know how many students must improve to meet targets. He noted the approach aims for sustained, realistic progress rather than one‑year spikes.
Board members raised measurement questions: Director Cook asked for evidence of student impact and cautioned that improvement requires systemwide adoption and multiple years of investment. Director Marlowe asked how supports translate for the district's multilingual learners (Spanish, Somali, Arabic) and how the district will measure outreach efforts such as Talking Points; staff said program evaluation planning will allow more granular disaggregation. Directors also queried how targets apply to Alternative Learning Centers (ALCs) and non‑comprehensive sites; staff said ALCs will have different, more volatile targets reflecting their populations.
The presenters noted some slides contained reversed graduation numbers and said they would correct and distribute updated materials; staff emphasized that gap‑closing goals will follow after district‑wide anchors are set and that schools will receive site‑level targets and model practices to support implementation. The board did not vote on the targets at this meeting; staff will return with additional materials and a final resolution for action on March 3.
Next steps: staff will correct presentation materials, continue to refine school‑level targets, develop program evaluation plans to assess student impacts and bring an action item to the March 3 meeting.
