Buying time with Rochester’s teachers

Before Eric Rosser officially took over as superintendent of the Rochester City School District on July 1, he created a “First 100 day” plan. It was aimed at aligning his actions with the district’s strategic goals by reviewing existing protocols, conducting meetings with community leaders and stakeholders, and developing plans for future improvements. 

Rosser’s “Five Focus Areas” and “action steps” did not include negotiating a teacher contract extension, a task he unexpectedly faced right away.

A one-year contract extension, forged by interim superintendent Demario Strickland and Rochester Teachers Association president Adam Urbanski this summer, was intended to give Rosser more time to hammer out a long-term contract. The contract approved in 2022 included a 3.8 percent salary increase and a $1,500 retention bonus—paid for by federal stimulus funds—for the 2022–23 and 2023–24 school years. The biggest items in the extension included a 4 percent raise in teacher salaries and a retention bonus of $2,500 to be paid out in June.

The board rejected that plan on July 8, with a 4-3 vote, amid concerns about costs and miscommunication. Rosser had to go back to the negotiation table with Urbanski, who later said an agreement was salvaged through the process.

The second contract extension was approved by the board on July 31. It was largely the same as before, only with the retention bonus to be paid sometime in September rather than June.

“He showed a level of measured strength and skills walking into this situation,” observes Camille Simmons, RCSD Board of Education president, about Rosser. “He did not allow for the situation to get him unraveled.”

Even with Rosser’s success, the incident illustrates the communication difficulties faced by the RCSD board. It also exposes a much larger issue: a declining student population and high teacher turnover in a district already beset by challenges.

Communication problem

Unclear communication lies at the core of the July 8 vote to reject the plan. Simmons says she first learned details of the extension proposal on June 19 from Strickland. She thought it would be discussed by the board at its business meeting on June 26.

“My response to the superintendent was, ‘OK, we need to make sure this goes before the full board for discussion,’” says Simmons. “This was also with the understanding that we’d be getting more information about how these numbers were reached so we could have a comprehensive conversation.”

However, Urbanski says, he and Strickland had already agreed on the plan on June 23, including the 4 percent salary increase and a $2,500 retention bonus to be paid in June. The contract was presented and ratified by the RTA Representative Assembly in a vote on June 25.

Urbanski was initially wary of a one-year extension, he says, but was reassured by Strickland. He was told that Strickland had board support for the plan and was informing Simmons of every step of the process. Simmons, on the other hand, says that she never gave any official “green light” for a contract plan and that there was no sustained communication from Strickland at that point.

“I can’t commit to something on behalf of my board, I’m an individual,” Simmons says. “How could we vote on something we don’t have full information about? And then being accused of backtracking on something we were never committed to?” 

Strickland, who has since started as superintendent at Mount Vernon City School District, declined to comment on the situation but says he wishes RCSD “nothing but long-term success.”

Urbanski says in his mind, after the RTA ratified the agreement, the only step left was for the board to approve the contract. Instead, the board surprised him when it postponed the vote and then voted against the plan. Simmons, along with Vice President Amy Maloy and commissioners James Patterson and Jacqueline Griffin, voted it down. Commissioners Beatriz LeBron-Harris, Isaiah Santiago, and Cynthia Elliott voted in favor.

“It was an ideal deal for the district, not just for teachers,” Urbanksi says. “(The decision) was an injury to trust. Teachers are feeling frustrated and unappreciated.”

He was not the only one surprised by the result. Maloy says the board “collectively was against the agreement” before the vote, but some members changed their minds after meeting separately with Strickland and Urbanski on June 27. Maloy says she was shocked at the “strong-arm tactics” taken by the RTA in the days following.

“As we had not yet voted on the resolution, this was a highly unethical and suspect meeting that violates good-faith bargaining efforts,” Maloy says.

Urbanski, who confirmed that the meeting took place, contends it was appropriate since the RTA had already ratified the contract extension. The board postponing its vote until July 8 would not have made a difference.

“It is not true that I met with any school board members during negotiations. When we met, it was already after the agreement was signed,” says Urbanski. “It is not unusual for me to meet with school board members after negotiations are concluded.”

Maloy was in favor of the 4 percent salary increase but voted against the extension due to concerns about the $2,500 retention bonus. The bonus was not a part of their original spending plans and represented about $8 million that the board had not budgeted for. (Urbanski called the $8 million estimate “insignificant” in the context of the district’s $1.1 billion draft budget for 2025-26.)

In her statement before the vote, Maloy called teachers the heart of the mission to educate children. However, the federal Big Beautiful Bill Act, Project 2025 and the end of COVID-19 pandemic relief funding were reasons to encourage caution around spending.

“At our current spending rate, this (fund balance) could be depleted within five years. Controlled borrowing may be necessary to sustain critical, and often mandated, services. But we must avoid spending down these reserves irresponsibly,” she said. 

“A one-year contract extension does not reflect the seriousness of the moment or the needs of our workforce,” she added. “If we are serious about supporting teachers and ensuring student success, we must return to the table in good faith and negotiate a three-year successor contract. One that promotes stability and incentivizes teaching in lasting ways.”

Simmons shares that appreciation for teachers.

“The incentives we provide our teachers need to be strategic, not just blanket raises,” she said. “If you look at any type of research or organization, you recognize money is not a predictor for employee satisfaction or full-on retention.”

LeBron-Harris said her vote was in support of teachers, contrasting with comments with those from Elliott and Griffin, which implied a failure and lack of caring from teachers. She also implied that similar supportive sentiments given by Simmons and Maloy were empty statements. Criticisms about a perceived lack of communication were included in her statement as well, with complaints escalating to full-blown shouting at points.

“To the teachers, let me just say all this hoopla that was tonight will not pay bills and support you. Go ahead, Camille, go ahead, girl,” LeBron-Harris said at the meeting, mocking Simmons. “Big old president messing up this damn district.”

LeBron-Harris did not respond to interview requests from the Beacon.

Rosser to the rescue

Between the unsuccessful vote on July 8 and the board’s next meeting, Rosser became superintendent and entered negotiations with RTA, and also carried out a series of small-group meetings with board members to keep them up to date.

“Dr. Rosser has come in and demonstrated the level of experience and communication that we did not previously receive,” says Simmons. “He communicated to the full board. He made sure all commissioners understood and had the information we did not previously have.”

Urbanski appreciates Rosser’s efforts as well, calling the process “collaborative and effective.”

The new contract was approved July 31 in a six-member unanimous board vote (Patterson was not present). The RTA Representative Assembly unanimously ratified it the next day.

Simmons says she changed her vote primarily due to the retention bonus payout change. Paying the bonus in September rather than June means that teachers have to stay in the district, an important element in retaining instructional staff. Simmons would like to move past this saga to what she sees as a hopeful future for the district with Rosser at the helm.

Ongoing issues

Even if that future is brighter with new leadership, the underlying issues of student population decline and teacher retention that fed this contract controversy are ongoing.

State Department of Education figures show that from 2004-05 to 2023-24, the number of students has fallen in both the Rochester city and suburban districts. 

The city student population fell by 39 percent, from 33,055 to 19,927 students, during that time frame. Meanwhile, student enrollment in the surrounding suburbs declined by 17 percent, from 83,664 to 69,436. 

In that same time frame, the number of RCSD teachers fell by 879 or 28 percent, from 3,035 to 2,156, while suburban districts saw a much smaller decline of 251 or 3.7 percent, from 6,711 to 6,460 teachers.

In 2023-24, the teacher-student ratio was slightly lower in the city compared to suburban districts. For every teacher in RCSD there were 9.24 students, versus 10.75 students per teacher in the suburbs.

The impact of charter schools has been most concentrated within the city, potentially contributing to declines in both student and teacher numbers at RCSD.

From 2004-05 to 2023-24, charter school enrollment increased from 2,064 to 7,805, or 278 percent. The district projects that charter schools will have over 9,000 enrolled, or nearly a third of all RCSD students, by 2027-28.

Although Urbanski and others have claimed families and teachers are choosing suburban districts or those outside the county instead, this is unclear and difficult to prove. Currently, the Churchville-Chili, Hilton, West Irondequoit, Webster, and Spencerport school districts show sustained growth with teachers, even as many of them have smaller student body populations.

The issue of teacher turnover and retention is something both Urbanski and Simmons agree on, with the board president calling it crucial.

While there is no consensus on the ideal teacher-to-student ratio, a general rule of thumb from educational research is that smaller class sizes are better for student outcomes. A 1985 study into Student-Teacher Achievement Ratio (STAR) in Tennessee found that test scores in classes of 13 to 17 students were much higher than scores in larger classes of 22 to 25 students.

The U.S. had an average student-teacher ratio of 15, according to a 2024 OECD report. NYSED data puts New York at an average of 11.21 in the 2023-24 school year. Efforts have been made in New York City to lower class sizes, with Gov. Kathy Hochul signing a law in 2022 that capped K-to-3 at 20 students per class, grades 4 to 8 at 23, and high school at 25 students in New York City.

Nonetheless, Urbanski views the loss of teachers behind the lower student-teacher ratio in the city schools as cause for alarm.

“We are hemorrhaging teachers,” Urbanski agrees. “There is a severe problem in the district, not just recruiting, but also retaining what is already there.”

At the beginning of summer, the district said it had 250 vacancies, including school support staff, paraprofessionals, and teachers. Eighty teachers retired this year, leaving the biggest gap for special education at the secondary school level. Finding teachers with full certification has been difficult as well, Urbanski says.

From 2004-05 to 2023-24, Rochester schools had an average teacher turnover of 16.5 percent each year. That means that the percentage of teachers “did not return to a teaching position in the district in the current school year,” according to the Education Department.

The two Irondequoit school districts were the only ones that came close. West Irondequoit had an average turnover rate of 13.7 percent, and East Irondequoit’s rate was 12.3 percent. The districts with the lowest average teacher turnover were Honeoye Falls-Lima and Penfield at 9.8 percent and 9.9 percent, respectively.

Outside Monroe County, the Buffalo City School District teacher turnover rate was also lower than Rochester’s, with an average of 15.4 percent in that same time frame.

Looking at Buffalo

Beyond teacher turnover, Buffalo is a useful comparison to Rochester. Both districts fall within a similar geographical area and have similar demographics. Over the past two decades, they have been faced with similar challenges, including childhood poverty, school safety and security, as well as behavioral issues and academic difficulties in the post-COVID-19 pandemic years.

In the 2004-05 school year, the number of students and teachers at the two districts was nearly equal. Buffalo had 36,806 total students, about 3,000 more than Rochester, and nearly the same number of teachers: Buffalo had 3,017 teachers, versus 3,035 in Rochester.

Over the two-decade period, 2004-05 to 2023-24, Buffalo’s student population fell by 9,356 pupils, a decline of 21 percent compared with the 40 percent decline in Rochester. The causes cited for this are the same in the two districts; they include family flight to suburban school districts, a rise in charter school enrollment, and overall demographic decline.

On the instructional side, the difference between the two districts is even more dramatic. Buffalo district added 105 teachers, while Rochester lost 879.

The National Association of State Boards of Education suggests Buffalo’s robust teacher pipeline programs have contributed to this growth. The University of Buffalo, Buffalo State College, and the national organization, the New Teacher Project, all support aspiring teachers. UB’s Buffalo Urban Teacher Pipeline Residency has trained 70 teachers since 2019, the majority of whom are people of color, during a 16-month paid residency.

Rochester has a number of teacher pipeline programs as well. These primarily come through residency programs with the University of Rochester, Nazareth College, and St. John Fisher University. The Monroe Regional Teacher Residency Consortium had 60 open spots for the 2025-26 academic year, while the ROC Urban Teaching Fellows Program had 15.

Higher pay

When it comes to salaries, there is a stark contrast between the neighboring urban districts. Data on teacher salaries from SeeThroughNY, a website tracking government spending run by the Empire Center, suggests that RCSD pay is fairly competitive among Monroe County school districts.

For example, the median annual salary in Rochester is $69,361, on par with the Brockport and Honeoye Falls-Lima schools, which have median salaries of $69,307 and $68,086, respectively. Syracuse schools are also comparable in this respect with a $69,030 median salary.

Rochester’s median salary is greater than the median salaries for Brighton, Penfield, Monroe 2-Orleans BOCES, Churchville-Chili, Hilton, West Irondequoit, Monroe 1 BOCES, East Irondequoit, Wheatland-Chili, and East Rochester schools. It also is higher than the average median salary of $67,442 for school districts in Monroe.

However, with a median salary of $80,707, teachers are paid much more in Buffalo than in Rochester. In fact, Erie County has higher teacher salaries in general; the average median salary for districts in Erie is $81,688.

A 2023 teacher contract from the Buffalo Teachers Federation (which included its own dramatic struggle of impasses, no-confidence votes in the superintendent, and tough tactics from BTF leadership) will likely keep that level high. News reports show the contract gave Buffalo teachers the second-highest starting pay in the region.

This disparity is true regardless of the content area. Bureau of Labor Statistics data shows that special education and career and technical education teachers across all grade levels earned $6,000 less in annual salary on average in Rochester compared to Buffalo.

Also included in the Buffalo contract was an agreement to provide health insurance to retirees for current and new teachers until July 1, 2026. The district has said this measure helped with recruitment and attracting teachers from the suburbs.

A strategy for Rochester?

While this generous strategy has paid off for Buffalo, which saw its teacher levels bounce back as early as the 2017-18 school year, lingering concerns might make it a nonviable option for Rochester. For instance, BCSD appears to have relied heavily on COVID-19 pandemic-related aid and spending to bolster its fund balance reserve.

Spending drawn from RCSD’s fund balance has been a line in the sand for the board. Even before Simmons was elected president at the beginning of 2025, the previous president, Elliott, was adamant about not spending that money. State Monitor Jamie Alicia has also recommended not spending any of the district’s reserves.

Urbanski has been vocally opposed to this cautious approach. Following the first failed contract extension vote, he bemoaned the fact that the “more than a quarter of a billion dollars” in reserve was not being spent on teachers. (At a City Council meeting in April, Strickland said the fund balance was $285 million in the 2025-26 proposed budget.)

For her part, Simmons says that being supportive of teachers and retention strategies has to include more than just money.

“We can’t just be throwing money at the issue. There has to be a long-term strategy, not in lieu of bonuses, but in addition to,” says Simmons. “Don’t just give people free dollars; also give them opportunities for growth, making sure they have the additional resources and support that they need. Because, across the country, teachers are under pressure.”

“These things cannot be negotiated in a few days or a few weeks. That’s why we need a full year to negotiate for multiyear contracts,” Urbanksi says. “We need improvements for our conditions in both teaching and learning.”

Jacob Schermerhorn is a Rochester Beacon contributing writer and data journalist.

The Beacon welcomes comments and letters from readers who adhere to our comment policy including use of their full, real name. See “Leave a Reply” below to discuss on this post. Comments of a general nature may be submitted to the Letters page by emailing [email protected].