Review of the Teacher Human Capital Work in the Rochester City

School District

Conducted by Rachel Curtis

Human Capital Strategies for Urban Schools

for the Rochester City Public Schools

January 2011

1
I. Introduction
Since the 1987 agreement between the Rochester City School District (RCSD) and the Rochester
Teachers Association (RTA), the work of teacher human capital1 development in Rochester City
Schools has been a jointly led venture. The goals of the agreement were simple: support teachers
effectively, create career pathways for them that honor and leverage their talents, and
compensate them fairly. It was a revolutionary agreement in 1987 and for years Rochester was
heralded as the example of visionary union-management partnership.

In the 23 years since this landmark agreement there has been a dramatic increase in the
expectations of and accountability for public education. Changes in the labor market and the
economy have made it virtually impossible to live a middle class lifestyle with a high school
education. The goal of public education has been redefined to focus on preparing students for
college and a career and the bar for what students need to graduate high school understanding
and able to do has been raised dramatically. The federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
legislation has made schools, districts and states accountable for student achievement based on
state assessment results. These new conditions have raised expectations for teachers and
teaching.

New York state’s 2010 recalibration of its cut scores for performance levels on the annual state
assessment of student learning was done to align the state expectations to the high standards that
are being promoted in the national Common Core Standards which are based on college and
career readiness standards. While Rochester has demonstrated steady improvement in student
achievement over the past three years, its performance relative to these new standards is
sobering.

1
“Human capital” is a term that refers to the knowledge, skills and abilities that employees possess.
“Human capital development” refers to a variety of strategies organizations can employ to support
employees’ continual development of their knowledge, skills and abilities, to hold them accountable for
their job performance, to create a career path, and to recognize and incent their performance through
compensation and rewards.

2
Before the recalibration, only 59% of students in grades 3-8 were performing at the levels of
proficiency or above in English language arts (64% in mathematics). After the calibration, the
levels dropped dramatically to 26% and 28% respectively. These data make clear that the quality
and rigor of instruction in the Rochester public schools needs to increase significantly to ensure
that students are learning at the level required for them to graduate high school with the
knowledge and skills they need to be successful, contributing adults. This review of teacher
human capital work in Rochester is done in the context of these much higher standards for
student learning.

In the interviews, focus groups, and school visits conducted as part of this review there was little
conversation about these new expectations, their implications for teaching, and how all of that
affects the career in teaching plan. The conversations were striking in how they focused on the
adults in the system: how they work together, what they want, how happy they are about the state
of affairs. The lack of explicit discussion of student needs and how they drive the career in
teaching work raises a fundamental question: have people in Rochester lost sight of the goal of
teacher human capital development which is to improve student learning and raise student
achievement?

The teacher human capital work in Rochester has not evolved to respond to the increased
expectations and accountability. While there is much that is promising about the work, overall, it
is not organized on clear, high standards or focused on the most important things districts and
unions must now do to ensure every child achieves at a high level.

II. Background

Superintendent Jean-Claude Brizard requested this review of teacher human capital development
efforts in RCSD to measure and assess the work against a framework for teacher human capital
development introduced in the book Teaching Talent (See Appendix A for framework). Given
the variety of efforts underway in Rochester, the current contract negotiations between the school
district and the RTA, and New York state’s receipt of Race to the Top funds, Superintendent
Brizard felt it was an opportune time for a thorough review of human capital efforts and
recommendations for how to strengthen and further develop that work.

The purpose of this review is to assess the state of teacher human capital efforts2 underway in
Rochester holistically. The review identifies strengths, opportunities for further development,
and gaps. It also assesses the level of coherence and alignment of these efforts and their
collective impact on teaching quality, career opportunities and student learning. This report
outlines a number of high-leverage issues that RCSD and RTA need to address to build a robust
teacher human capital development system. It makes recommendations about specific actions
that the district and union can take to raise expectations for student achievement and teaching
and to develop people’s capacity to meet them.
2
While the focus of this report is teacher human capital, the issue of principal human capital is addressed
as it relates to principals’ ability to support teacher development, create a positive working environment
for teachers, and effectively supervise and evaluate teachers based on clear standards of performance.

3
Supporting teacher human capital development is one of the most important things a school
system can do for this simple reason: of all the school-based factors, teaching has the greatest
impact on student learning. Creating high standards for teaching, supporting teachers to meet
those standards, recognizing, rewarding and leveraging teaching talent, and creating career
opportunities that reward excellence and make teaching a dynamic and appealing career are
critical to raising student achievement. Addressing these issues honors teachers, ensuring that
“teaching excellence” is defined by a rigorous standard and that all of the systems and structures
organized to support and reward excellence are similarly standards-based.

III. Methods

This analysis draws on a variety of data sources which were triangulated to provide the
perspective of multiple stakeholders and a thorough examination of the various components of
an effective human capital development system. These data sources include:

• Review of a variety of background materials provided by RCSD and RTA;

• Visits to five schools that included classroom observations and conversations with
teachers and school administrators;
• Interviews with twenty people representing RCSD, RTA and their partners (See
Appendix B for list of interviewees);
• Three focus groups with a total of 19 teachers (See Appendix B for list of focus group
participants)

This report reflects a synthesis of all of these data, identifying key findings and making
associated recommendations. The report is organized by a series of findings; for each finding
there is an explanation of the evidence collected that led to the finding and recommendations for
how to most effectively address it. The conclusion of the report addresses the issue of
implementing the recommendations. It suggests ways to think about prioritizing, sequencing and
pacing implementation to maximize effect.

IV. Findings and Related Recommendations

At the request of the superintendent, this report primarily focuses on challenges and
opportunities for improvement. Yet it is important to start by acknowledging a number of
valuable resources in place that can support the work of strengthening human capital
development. These resources, which were consistently cited in interviews and focus groups,
include:

• The Career in Teaching Plan (CIT) provides a context, framework and infrastructure that
could be used to drive this work.
• The CIT new teacher induction program has been thoughtfully designed and
implemented and is a valuable resource.
• The CIT director is consistently described as very competent and responsive.

4
 • There is a cadre of excellent teachers in the system who can help the system build its
capacity to serve all students well.
• Three new Chiefs of Schools have been hired to oversee schools and supervise principals.
They have a strong, shared vision for the work that is guided by high expectations.
Principals reported that their work with the new chiefs is discernibly different, much
more focused on instructional leadership and developing structures and systems in the
schools to support excellent teaching and student learning.
• There is a group of principals who deeply understand their role as human capital
managers and are doing this work well. They are a resource the system can draw on to
support the development of all principals and highlight promising practices.
• The new Chief Academic Officer and her team are in the process of focusing the teaching
and learning agenda for the system and the related supports (professional development,
coaching, etc.). This provides an opportunity to tightly align the teaching and learning
agenda with the human capital agenda.
• The Rochester Leadership Academy is a new resource available to support principal
capacity building.

With these resources available to support teacher human capital development, we shift our
attention to the seven findings of the analysis which outline the challenges the system faces in
building a robust teacher human capital development system and recommendations for how to
most effectively address them.

Seven Overarching Findings

1. The system lacks a performance management culture and the infrastructure to support it.
2. The Human Capital Initiatives department is fundamentally broken and is unable to
manage basic human resources transactions, much less strategic human capital functions.
3. The standards of teaching practice outlined in the teacher evaluation rubric are neither
rigorous nor do they reflect a clear articulation of a theory of effective instruction. There
is wide variability in the quality of instruction in Rochester Public Schools classrooms
and there is little evidence of rigor.
4. There is great variability in RCSD principals’ ability to function as human capital
managers and there isn’t a robust strategy in place to address this.
5. The teacher induction program is not guided by a set of high standards for teacher
performance or an aligned set of standards for mentors’ work.
6. The concept of a career pathway is neither fully developed nor thoroughly implemented.
7. The design of the CIT panel and its scope of authority may be compromising the
effectiveness of efforts to ensure teaching excellence.

Finding #1
The system lacks a performance management culture and the infrastructure to support it.

5
Evidence
• Interviewees described a pervasive culture of interpreting an evaluation of a teacher’s
practice as an evaluation of the person her/himself which makes providing critical
feedback on practice very difficult.
• Efforts at holding teachers accountable for performance on the job were described as “a
hammer” and “gotcha.”
• The systems in place appear to focus on processes rather than performance.
• There is no substantive tenure review process in place.
• There is no system in place for all teachers to identify growth goals in partnership with
their supervisor and focus their development on these goals.
• Trends in teacher performance and instructional practices are not tracked to inform
professional development offerings and it is unclear if/how professional development
offerings are aligned to teacher needs.
• Evaluations of teachers are inconsistently done. Sixty-five percent of first-year teachers
didn’t receive their final evaluation by May 15 as required.3
• While contract language indicates that the CIT Joint Governing Panel oversees teachers’
movement from “intern,” to “resident,” to “professional” career development levels, that
movement was described in interviews as pro forma and defined by time served in all but
the most serious cases of poor performance.
• In the last six years 10 teachers (0.3% of the total teacher workforce) were referred to the
Teacher Improvement Program (TIP). Six of these teachers (0.2% of the total teacher
workforce) were dismissed. Some people interviewed interpret these data as an indication
of the effectiveness of the Professional Support and Teacher Improvement Programs
while others interpret them as a sign of the ineffectiveness of these programs and low
standards. There are no clear data to support either assertion but national research
suggests the low rate of dismissal reflects low standards and/or poorly executed
evaluations.4
• Human Capital Initiatives cannot provide accurate data about the rate of completion of
teacher evaluations or track trends in performance.
• The system celebrates its 85% retention rate of new teachers in their first five years but it
is not clear if the system is effectively counseling out or dismissing poor performers in
the early years (this is known as “good attrition”). Mentors are described as “counseling
out” ineffective teachers in their first two years but there are no clear data about this
process or what percent of the new teachers who leave the system leave because of
performance issues.
• There is a significant range in principals’ ability to effectively observe and analyze
instruction and support teachers to improve and their understanding of this as one of their
most important job responsibilities.
• CIT’s work to support teacher development is very clear and generally well regarded. Its
efforts to hold teachers accountable for high performance and pursue persistent
underperformers for dismissal is much less clear, not well understood by principals, and
is explicitly questioned by some stakeholders.

3
One principal challenged this data point, explaining that HCI data are unreliable and telling the story of
how her completion rate of teacher evaluations was inaccurate.
4
The Widget Report, The New Teacher Project, 2009.

6
 • Principals do not clearly understand the CIT Intervention and Remediation process, how
and when they can access it, and the process and timeline for intervention.

Recommendations
1. Develop a teacher evaluation system that includes measures of teaching, student
achievement, and other indicators of teacher professionalism.
2. Establish teaching standards and an aligned rubric as part of the evaluation system. Set a
high bar for proficiency and align professional development to the standards.
3. Track teacher performance on each teaching standard. Use the information to identify
trends and guide professional development.
4. Build principals’ work supervising and evaluating teachers into their performance
standards and evaluation. Assess both their completion of evaluations and the quality of
them.
5. Create performance benchmarks teachers must meet to proceed from their first year of
teaching to their second and from their second to their third.
6. Establish a formal tenure review process and make achieving tenure a meaningful
professional accomplishment that is accompanied by a significant increase in
compensation and opportunities.
7. Increase the rigor of lead teacher selection by connecting it explicitly to the evaluation
system measures and specific performance levels that need to be attained in each
measure.
8. Educate principals about the CIT Intervention and Remediation program, communicate
clear expectations about how principals should use the program, and monitor their use of
it.

Finding #2
The Human Capital Initiatives department is fundamentally broken and is unable to manage
basic human resources transactions, much less strategic human capital functions.

Evidence
• Every principal interviewed expressed little confidence in the department. One principal
suggested that the superintendent “gut the whole department and start anew.” The
principals’ anecdotes included: HCI not having accurate certification information about
teachers hired and sending principals inappropriate people to fill positions; extensive late
hiring in August coupled with not hiring in the areas of highest need; HCI sending
inaccurate information to principals about their rate of completion of evaluations which
the principal had to track down and fix; emails from HCI staff filled with spelling and
grammatical errors.
• The department is losing key staff at a rapid pace which is resulting in low morale and an
overwhelming workload for remaining staff.
• Data provided by HCI as background for this review was hard to interpret and its
accuracy was questioned.
• Principals expressed concerns about HCI staff who have no teaching experience and
aren’t well positioned to assess teaching skills screening teaching applicants.
• Much of the hiring of new teachers is completed in mid to late August.

7
 • The CIT director is maintaining records and data that are usually the purview of a human
resources department. Her data appear to be the more reliable than information provided
by HCI.

Recommendations
1. Hire a Director of HCI who can get the transactional aspect of human resources in order
over the next 12-18 months with an eye to pursue human capital development strategies
as soon as the foundation required to support them has been set.
2. Build a single, integrated data management systems for HCI, ensure its ability to generate
basic data (e.g. numbers and demographics of hires, teacher attendance, teacher
evaluation information tracked by evaluator, school, teaching standard, grade level,
subject area, retirement projections and hiring needs).
3. Renegotiate contract language to streamline the transfer process, create accountability for
experienced teachers who cannot find positions, and to move all of this up in the calendar
so that teaching positions can be posted externally in February or March.

Finding #3
The standards of teaching practice outlined in the teacher evaluation rubric are neither
rigorous nor do they reflect a clear articulation of a theory of effective instruction. There
is wide variability in the quality of instruction in Rochester Public Schools classrooms
and there is little evidence of rigor.

Evidence
• There was wide variance in the level of student engagement, the quality of instruction,
and the rigor of tasks pursued in the classrooms (K-12) visited as part of this review. In
the majority of classrooms observed, the level of cognitive demand of the instruction and
assignments was low. Interviewees described a similar level of variability and lack of
rigor.
• The highest of the five ratings (“distinguished”) in the current teacher evaluation
instrument does not reflect a high standard of practice. When comparing it to research-
based teaching standards used across the country, the description of “distinguished” (5 in
a 5-scale rubric) is comparable to a rating of “proficient” (3 on a 4-scale rubric)
• The descriptors in the rubrics are often vague and hard to measure e.g. “teacher continues
to maintain student-centered instruction, for improved student outcomes,” and “teacher
encourages students to monitor their own behavior.”
• The instructional strategies referenced in the rubric are very limited (i.e. questioning,
differentiation, and interdisciplinary teaching) and do not communicate to teachers or
their supervisors an image of the district’s theory of effective instruction.
• Principals described using the rubric to evaluate teachers but then needing to identify
instructional expectations at the building level to focus on the highest-leverage
instructional strategies they want to support teachers to implement.
• Career in Teaching (CIT) is currently using the Danielson Framework for Teaching
rubric to guide new teacher mentoring while simultaneously trying to prepare first-year
teachers for an evaluation that will use a different rubric approved by the CIT Panel for
teacher evaluation.

8
Recommendations
1. Identify the highest-leverage instructional strategies that Rochester expects all teachers to
use. Ensure teachers, principals, the CAO’s staff, and the chiefs of schools are
represented in this work to ensure its robustness and the alignment of teaching and
learning supports and the work the chiefs do with their principals to it.
2. Define Rochester’s expectations for teachers regarding planning, instruction, assessing
effectiveness and professional responsibilities.
3. Assess teaching and learning frameworks and related rubrics developed in other school
systems (e.g. Denver, Chicago, District of Columbia, Pittsburgh and Achievement First)
against the Rochester’s expectations (see bullet #2 above). Decide if there is a framework
that is well matched to Rochester’s expectations that can be adopted or adapted or if the
system will develop its own teaching standards.
4. Organize training for teachers and principals on the new standards to help them
recalibrate their understanding of teaching excellence to the new standards.
5. Discuss and determine how to address the issue of content-specific pedagogy in the
context of what will likely be content-neutral teaching standards.

Finding #4
There is great variability in RCSD principals’ ability to function as human capital managers and
there isn’t a robust strategy in place to address this.

Evidence
• Some principals can clearly describe their practices of observing and analyzing
instruction and sharing feedback with teachers in ways that support their development
and their description reflects effective practice. Other principals appear unclear on what
they should be looking for in classrooms and how to talk to teachers about their practice
in ways that support improvement. It is not clear if these principals do regular
observations and/or talk to teachers about their practice.
• The year one (SY 2010-11) curriculum of the Rochester Leadership Academy (RLA)
appears to focus broadly on leadership skills with less attention given to specific skills
principals need to lead instructional improvement in their schools.
• It is not yet clear what the chiefs of schools are focusing their professional development
on and the extent to which RLA’s and chiefs’ principal professional development are
aligned and complementary.

Recommendations
1. Identify a few (2-3)5 critical things the system is expecting principals to do and goals for
the status of this work for June 2012.
2. Engage RLA leadership and chiefs of schools in planning backwards from the goals (see
bullet #1 above) to design a yearlong principal professional development curriculum and
to establish clear benchmarks to measure principals’ application of learning.

5
Based on the focus of this report, state mandates and data collected, I assume implementing the new
teacher evaluation system and weighted student funding are two of the big priorities.

9
 3. Ensure all RLA and chiefs’ principal professional development is tightly aligned to the
curriculum developed, complementary, and mutually reinforcing. Ensure that leadership
skills are taught in the context of specific work prioritized for principals rather than
independently.
4. Align the chiefs’ supervision and evaluation to the goals and the benchmarks established.
5. Provide deep, ongoing training for principals on observing and analyzing teaching and
talking with teachers about their practice to support their improvement.
6. Include human capital metrics (e.g. teacher evaluation completion and quality, teacher
retention, use of professional development and common planning time, school culture) in
principal evaluations.
7. Enhance LEAD program recruitment, curriculum, and training to ensure that program
graduates are prepared to lead schools effectively and manage human capital.

Finding #5
The teacher induction program is thoughtfully designed and implemented and could be further
strengthened.

Evidence
• The induction program was consistently described as the most effective professional
development for teachers in the system.
• Most teachers who received mentoring in their first year describe it as a positive
experience. For some it was clearly a lifeline.
• The director of CIT has created a variety of structures and systems (surveying, tracking,
mentor training, rubrics) to define and guide the work of mentors and is very organized.
• While there is a process in place for CIT panel members to review the work of mentors it
is not clear what criteria are used for this review, if they are standards-based, how panel
members are trained to assess mentors, and how assessments are calibrated.
• Teacher behaviors appear to be the primary vehicle for measuring the effectiveness of the
intern and/or the mentor with little attention given to student achievement.
• Intern survey results gave mentors highest scores on “met regularly,” “listened
attentively,” and “encouraged reflection on instruction,” while giving the lowest scores
on “co-taught,” “showed how to use data to plan lessons,” and “reviewed student work.”
These data raise questions about how focused the mentoring is on instruction and student
learning.
• CIT has a process for deciding if a new teacher will move from “intern” to “resident”
status but it appears to be informal and not standards-based.
• Many people interviewed cited the unevenness of mentor quality and explained that a
great mentor means a great experience and a weak mentor makes the program much less
effective.
• CIT screening of lead teachers does not include either an observation of teaching or an
assessment of teachers’ effectiveness in facilitating student learning.
• The screening of lead teachers and the activation of them as mentors does not appear to
include an assessment of the skills associated with effective mentoring.
• The 85% teacher retention rate (in first five years) and reported rates of counseling out
new teachers do not match up.

10
 • It is not possible to parse the retention rate data to discern between good and bad attrition.

Recommendations
1. Align induction program curriculum to new teaching standards.
2. Create clear performance benchmarks tied to the standards and the components of the
evaluation system teachers must meet to move from “intern” to “resident” status and
from first-year resident to second-year resident.
3. Focus mentoring tightly on these performance benchmarks, the related instructional
strategies and the resulting student behaviors and learning.
4. Require mentors and principals to formally endorse a teacher to move from “intern” to
“resident” status.
5. Create mentor performance standards aligned to the teacher performance standards and
research-based coaching skills. Use these standards to guide mentor selection,
professional development, and accountability. Train CIT panel members on these
standards and related rubric.
6. Design mentor professional development on the new teaching standards and specific
coaching strategies to address the most important standards for new teachers and the year
one performance benchmarks.
7. Conduct exit interviews with teachers who leave the system in their first five years to
better understand attrition.

Finding #6
The concept of a career pathway is neither fully developed nor thoroughly implemented.

Evidence
• There is neither a substantive tenure review process nor a significant increase in salary
when tenure is conferred as recognition of having realized an important milestone.
• Lead teachers are paid for additional work they do but not for having achieved lead
teacher status.
• Mentoring is the only (with the exception of six assignments related to curriculum and
instruction) work opportunity for lead teachers to pursue. There are no lead teacher
opportunities tied to working with students.
• The traditional step and lane salary structure remains in place. This rewards time in the
system and graduate credits accrued and communicates a different message than the idea
of a career pathway.

Recommendations
1. Tie the career pathway to a revamped teacher evaluation that ensures recognition for
excellence in instruction and student learning.
2. Set clear performance benchmarks teachers must meet relative to the teaching standards
and student achievement to be eligible for tenure and lead teacher status.
3. Make the achievement of tenure and lead teacher status important professional milestones
that are accompanied by symbolic recognition as well as substantial increases in
compensation and access to career opportunities.
4. Organize lead teacher opportunities on the system’s greatest needs to serve students well.

11
 5. Create lead teacher opportunities that support innovations in how students are served and
teacher working conditions.
6. Transition from a salary schedule based on steps and lanes to one organized on
performance and responsibilities.

Finding #7
The design of the CIT panel and its scope of authority may be compromising the effectiveness of
efforts to ensure teaching excellence and the role of principals as instructional leaders and human
capital managers.

Evidence
• The CIT panel has authority over developing the teacher evaluation instrument,
reviewing principal evaluations of teachers, arbitrating performance management issues
and recognizing teaching excellence but it is not clear that expertise in these areas is a
criterion for membership on the CIT panel.
• The CIT panel is responsible for developing the teacher evaluation instrument but neither
the Chief Academic Officer nor anyone working in curriculum and instruction is a
member of the panel.
• CIT panel decides the focus of new teacher induction.
• The CIT panel reviews principals’ evaluations of teachers.
• CIT Professional Support program bypasses principals, making it difficult to synchronize
efforts and undermining the principals’ role as the manager of human capital.
• A significant number of principals do not understand the Intervention process or how to
use it to address poorly performing teachers. Some principals perceive the program as
driven by the union and not supportive of dismissing persistently poor performing
teachers. Based on the rate of referrals, very few principals are using the program.
• The CIT panel determines lead teacher status and the principal’s recommendation is one
of six recommendations required.
• The effectiveness of CIT’s Professional Support cannot be measured because the only
data available are how many teachers have requested support and been served.

Recommendations
1. Decide if the CIT panel is going to be the driver of human capital efforts moving
forward. If it is, the district and the union need to revise panel membership to ensure the
panel is prepared to do the critical work it faces. Panel members also need access to
ongoing professional development and promising practices nationally to guide their
work.
2. Review and revamp current policies and practices that reduce the principals’ voice in
important human capital decision. Wherever possible, rework those policies and practices
to have the principal and the CIT representative work together to make joint decisions.
3. Track the work of the Professional Support program to measure improvement in teaching
practice while ensuring confidentiality.
4. Educate principals about the Intervention program and have principals who have
effectively used the program to support improvement and/or dismissal describe their
experiences.

12
V. Conclusion

Given the number and variety of recommendations made in this report, it is important to think
strategically about how to implement them. There are external forces that will inform the
implementation of a couple of the recommendations e.g. NY state’s timeline for a new teacher
evaluation tool and process. Beyond that, the system and the union need to decide how they will
implement the recommendations.

There are three simple ways to think strategically about implementation that may be helpful as
the system and the union work together to prioritize and pace the work. They are:

1. Ease and Impact: This measures the level of ease or difficulty of implementation against
the level of impact implementation will have on student learning. Each of the
recommendations can be placed on the graph (see below) based on how easy/hard each of
them will be to implement and how low/high the impact of each will be. Infrastructure,
organizational capacity, politics and partnerships that can be leveraged are just a few
things that determine how easy or hard it will be to implement specific recommendations.
Impact is best measured by asking what the effect of implementing specific
recommendations will be on the quality of teaching and student learning.

Examples of what you can learn from this tool include: it would be relatively easy to
educate principals about the Intervention and Remediation program and create clear
expectations about how they are expected to use the program; this would likely have a
significant impact on student learning because an increased number of the lowest
performing teachers would be getting support that would result in them either improving
their practice or being dismissed. Conversely, it will be challenging to raise teachers’ and
principals’ expectations for what is rigorous instruction and their ability to deliver and
support it respectively. Yet, the impact of raising the rigor of classroom instruction is
high as it is what will provide more students with the understanding and skills required to
score at the levels of proficiency or above on the state assessments.

High Hard/High Impact Easy/High Impact

Impact

Low Hard/Low Impact Easy/Low Impact

Low Ease High

13
 2. Synergy: This explores how coupling the implementation of specific recommendations
will have a greater effect on student learning. An example of this is simultaneously
setting a high bar for tenure and redesigning compensation to award teachers with a
significant increase in salary when they earn tenure.

3. Pacing and Sequencing: This addresses the issue of what recommendations need to be
addressed first, second, third… to ensure that the foundation and capacity required for
more advanced work are built initially. 6 An example of this is establishing rigorous
teaching standards quickly as they will serve as the basis for setting the bar for tenure,
establishing standards for mentors, etc.

A review of the recommendations considering these three strategic implementation issues will
allow the system to develop a three-year teacher human capital management plan. Resources
(time, people, and money) can then be organized to support this work. Executing this plan will
allow the system to establish rigorous standards for teaching excellence, raise the quality of
instruction and diminish the level of variability in instruction, and recognize and reward high
performance. RCSD and RTA’s longstanding, shared commitment to teacher development and
career pathways serves as a powerful starting place for this work.

6
Curtis, Rachel and City, Elizabeth, Strategy in Action, Cambridge, Harvard Education Press, 2009, p.
131.

14
APPENDIX A

FRAMEWORK FOR HUMAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT IN K-12 TEACHING

CREATING CAREER PATHWAYS THAT SUPPORT STUDENT LEARNING AND SYSTEMIC IMPROVEMENT

ION TEACHING
CT G LEADERSHIP
TRADITIONAL DU HIN
PATHWAY AC
IN

TE
D E

LEA
UR
TE N

DERS
HIP DEVELOPM

RESIDENCY PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SCHOOL

PATHWAY COMPENSATION AND REWARDS LEADERSHIP
NG

E NT
HI
AC

E
ON

DT
IMMERSION URE TI
SYSTEM-LEVEL
N
PATHWAY
TE UC
IN D
LEADERSHIP

15
APPENDIX B

Interviews
Shaun Nelms, Chief of Schools
Deasure Matthew, Chief of Schools
Anne Brown Scott, Chief of Schools
Sam Walton, Dean of Ed School at St John Fischer
John Scanlan, Deputy Superintendent of Administration
Mary Doyle, Senior Director of the Office of Innovation
Joyce Martelli, Chief Financial Officer
LoWan Brown, Director of Human Capital Initiatives
Marie Costanza, Director, Career in Teaching
Toyia Wilson, Principal of Northwest College Prep
Jacqui Polito, Senior Director of Labor Relations
Debbie Berardi, Assistant Director of Labor Relations
Adam Urbanski, President of the Rochester Teachers Association
Beth Mascitti-Miller, Deputy Superintendent of Teaching and Learning
Tim Mains, Principal at School #50
Vicki Ramos, Principal at Monroe HS
Carlos Leal, Instructional Director of Professional Learning
Mary Andrecolich Diaz, Principal of Jefferson HS
Kim Dyce-Faucett, Chief of Staff
Jean-Claude Brizard, Superintendent
!
Teacher Focus Groups
Nestor Arce
Banke Awopetu
Megan Barrett
Mary Battaglia
Hercilia Cassell
Stefan Cohen
Khieta Davis
Marielly Diaz
Jeffrey Feinberg
Duane Hanselman
Donna Johnson
Steven LaDue
Matthew Lavonas
Diane Santiago
Corey Skinner
Mary Stucki
Packeta Tadal
Edith Turner
David Wurz

16