A DOE plan to personalize bureaucracy is making unions nervous

March 10, 2009

A DOE plan to personalize bureaucracy is making unions nervous

by Elizabeth Green, at 1:31 pm

Eric Nadelstern heads the Children's First Network, which is set to expand. (Via Cody Castro)

In a quiet project that has union activists gritting their teeth with concern, the Department of Education is once again moving to reshape its own bureaucracy — this time by offering about 300 schools the option to transform the way they manage basic back-office tasks, from busing to budget planning to monitoring medical vaccinations. The change, which principals are learning about this month and which is set to begin in September, would be the third time these schools have transformed the way they work with the system bureaucracy since Mayor Bloomberg took control of the schools in 2002.

The way operational services are handled has already changed several times since 2002. When Bloomberg first took office, 32 individual district offices — plus separate offices for high schools, alternative schools, and special education schools — managed school operations. Those were replaced by six offices serving 10 regions after Schools Chancellor Joel Klein’s first reorganization of the school system, and then by a single Integrated Service Center, with five borough branches, after Klein revised the structure again in 2006. During the 2006 reorganization, instructional services were also relocated, to a group of nine support organizations from which principals now choose one.

The new format would further personalize services by expanding a model that’s been quietly piloted for the last two years under the name of the Children First Network. Rather than leaning on the imposing ISC for help writing their budgets and managing paperwork-heavy responsibilities like special education, the 90 schools in the Children First Network bypass the ISC altogether. Instead, each group of about 20 schools — the configuration known in all of the citywide support organizations as a “network” — works with a team of 13 staff members who do the same tasks performed by the ISC, but on a smaller scale.

Because these staff members focus only on the 20 schools they are assigned to, principals in the program say they are less like bureaucrats and more like partners. “I know these people really, really well. They’re not some faceless bureaucrat sitting halfway across the city that I only know through e-mail and phone calls,” said a principal in the pilot phase of the network, Michael Soet of Brooklyn’s International High School. “These are people that I really know well.”

The close attention means principals can free themselves of much of the business of running a school day to day and focus instead on the business of educating their students. Before she joined CFN, Marisol Bradbury, principal at Bedford Stuyvesant Preparatory High School, said she spent hours managing tasks unrelated to instruction. “You would have to call one person, then call someone else, and then send that person to a different office, and then that person would have to communicate with someone else,” she said. “With CFN, it’s been such a better way of living.”

Chief Schools Officer Eric Nadelstern, who launched CFN when he headed the system’s empowerment schools program and is continuing to manage it, said the satisfaction has translated into better schools. Ratings of all the school system’s roughly 70 networks of schools indicate that the first network to join CFN has risen from about the middle of the pack to the No. 1 network in the city, Nadelstern said. He said the ratings, which are based on student test scores, graduation rates, and other measures included on the school progress reports, will become public in the next few months.

The ratings are one reason Nadelstern and Klein decided to expand the pilot, which in the first two years included just four networks and was funded by a private grant from the NewSchools Venture Fund. Starting next fall, the department will open CFN up to as many as 20 networks, an expansion that could bring more than 350 schools into the program.

While Nadelstern focuses on the instructional advantages he hopes will come out of the expansion, the news of the change has created something of a frenzy among some who worry it will cause confusion of the sort that accompanied previous reorganizations of the school system’s bureaucracy — and at the worst possible time, during a budget crisis. A teachers union source who is familiar with the plan pointed out that the expansion would mean moving as many as 128 administrative staff from the ISC to networks. He said that kind of change looks unmistakably like a third reorganization of the school system. “I don’t know how else you can look at it, because you’re going to be shifting support people across the city of New York,” said the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity because negotiations are still underway with school officials.

Though the DOE has insisted the project won’t carry any new costs, and that it could even save money over time, the principals union is not yet convinced. “There is a certain amount of automatic suspicion because the DOE has spent a lot of money over time,” said Chiara Coletti, the union’s communications director. “We want them to demonstrate to us why it is cost neutral.”

Nadelstern and department officials insist that the change is not a reorganization, but rather an expansion of options. Principals already choose which instructional support system they’d like from a menu of options; now, Nadelstern says, they can also choose how they’d like to have their back-office needs supported. “Choice and competition have proven effective on the instructional side of the equation,” Nadelstern said. “We think it’s going to prove equally effective on the operational side.”

http://jd2718.wordpress.com Jonathan

It’s hard to tell where the DoE announcement ends and GS begins. Personalize bureaucracy? “Pesonalize bureaucracy?”
http://ednotesonline.blogspot.com/ Norm

Insiders report that Klein has unleashed a war between ISC and Children First network, with officials of each back biting and holding back on cooperation. Just what the schools need under the massive insanity emanating from Tweed. The Children First Network started out like a bolt of lightning with some great schools, but as in any business oriented mentality, the ramp up has led to a deterioration. But since that is of little relevance in the world of Tweed, bet on ISC to lose this one. The problem for the CFN is that they will find their little group of 13 – a very unlucky number in this case- will not be able to deliver. We all know there was waste when there was an ISC in each of 40 districts and the transition to 10 regions were rough. Then they moved to boroughs. Now back to districts in essence with 13 people for 20 schools. Hell, my old district (14) didn’t have 13 people for 27 schools. So, it’s back to the beginning with what will turn out to be more waste. Just another big OOOPS!
http://www.classsizematters.org leonie haimson

What’s amazing ab is how they can create so many different management structures without ever admitting that the previous version was a mistake– and how the media lets them get away with this!
robert

This in no way is cost effective, in a time of fiscal crisis is not a time to test different organizational structures. Try asking many of these principals why they are going CFN and many can not give you a valid reason other than this is what they were told to do. Many of the principals were told if they dont go CFN now than next year they will be forced to go. many of the Principals still think they will get ISC support but they are in for a big shock. In the Principals i have spoken to they are quite confused and feel they really dont have much choice and were not shown how it will benefit the schools and save the schools money. It is unbelievable how so many principals have signed up CFN while being ignorant to what it really is. It looks like somebody did a real sales job on them
http://edintheapple peter

Attacking change has become a reflex action. I believe the CFN, actually “virtual” ISCs, are a positive step, moving “backroom” operations closer to schools, and, building sustainability within schools. We moved from thousands of employees in district offices, to many hundreds in ISC and Regional Offices, to Support Organizations. As I understand the CFN their staff will spend most of their time in schools. In a world of laptops and blackberrys offices are no longer necesary.
For all it’s shortcomings, and their are many, the use of technology is a strong DOE plus … from Galaxy to online per session applications, to HSST, to some of the aspects of ARIS, the NYC school system can become an agile organization, if, and only if, the principals and their staffs can utilize the range of technology oriented services. Automatically rejecting change is harmful to teachers and children. The ability to budget, order, access info with a few mouse clicks frees school staff to concentrate on the classroom … where the action should be …
http://www.classsizematters.org leonie haimson

The above statement is typical DOE PR spin that has little or no support in the actual data:”We moved from thousands of employees in district offices, to many hundreds in ISC and Regional Offices, to Support Organizations.”

Actually, the cost and staffing of district offices was about the same as exists now in the SSO’s, not even counting the ISCs. And the district structure provided many more benefits to parents and principals alike.

I think that moving support services closer to schools is a good idea — and is similar to the original structure in which the district offices supplied these services. Rather than creating a new fancy “network”, they should put the support staff back into the district offices where they belong.
Michael M.

If it walks like a District, talks like a District, gawd ferbid we CALL it a District, given how hard we worked to abolish same and thin out business and operational support between the individual school level and Tweed.

Turns out there IS something to be said for an intermediate level “back-office” support system on a more localized scale than “ISC” or “Region,” needed to fill a role for Principals that SSO’s simply aren’t chartered (so to speak) to do.

Just don’t call it a “District.”

Note that at a 20:1 ratio, say roughly 1,000 schools, that’s 50 or so “networks” — slightly MORE than the number of abolished District support offices.

When in doubt, reorganize. Just don’t admit we’ve come full circle.
Robert

Can someone tell me how the DOE claims this Reorg will not carry any costs, how is that possable ??From what i understand the CFN pay scale is a lot higher than what the ISC staff make. so how can you tell me this wont cost more money? Another question i have is these schools already are in a state of confusion on who to call to solve there problems, now that they are finally figuring out whom there contacts are this whole new reorg will start a whole new confusion? There must be some stabilty for the schools not to try different things every 2 years. try to improve on the current structure so we can perfect it instead of abolishing everything that was done previously.
http://edintheapple peter

Robert: This is the second year of the CFN pilot … schools have given it high grades on the Satisfaction Survey … it brings services closer to the school, rather than sitting in an office responding to emails and phone calls the CFN staff spends much more time in schools working w/ relevant staff … we tend to trash everything the DOE does, and much deserves trashing, but, if rolled out deliberately this will build capacity at schools …
Mark

I dont know how this is not called a Reorganization. Half my ISC contacts were told they would be laid off. As i finally became comfortable with my ISC contacts now everything is being reshuffled again. The D.O.E will NEVER retain top talent . The poor staff (which we rely on so often)are constantly being thrown around not knowing if they will have a job. Granted there are some staff that are a waste the majority are very professional and helpfull. One ISC rep told me she has been with the DOE 6 years and every year she had to worry about keeping her job, while top management just continues collecting there $180,000 a year. Obviously they are the ones not doing a good job if every change they made does not seem to work.
Jennifer

The ISC’s, though better than the structures beforehand, still had a D+ quality of service. Dealing with staff who are in no way accountable to our school, and whose ability and quality differed wildly, is one of the most difficult parts of my job. It is not uncommon to have to make 20-30 phone calls or emails, to multiple staffers, to resolve a single issue (i.e. a lost paycheck). I’m thrilled to have the chance to recruit, interview, hire, train and help supervise the operations team for our network under CFN. It’s exactly the right way to go.
bob h

D+, rough call… patience is always a virtue… 20 calls can be made in one week / less. Government stuff from my experience takes longer your guess is as good as mine on why.
btw – Paychecks should be electronically deposited. Period.
jessica

Jennifers comments above are exactly what the problems are first of all the misrepresentaion that the ISCs have a D quality of service is a gross misrepresentation ! again jennifers comments sound like a sales pitch with no actual date to back it up! if that is in fact true tell me how going CFN will solve this, the same employees whom you claim brought down the ISC service are just moving over to the CFN, to put into plain english the same employees whom you claim to call 20- 30 times to resolve a payroll problem are just moving to the CFN, from what i understand the best employees have been asked under the table that they will have a job with the ISC for next year so the CFN will end up with the lower talented employee. so if anything when the principals call the CFN next year they might have to make 50- 60 calls to resolve a problem.
Alan

The real reason they are doing this is to keep the schools in a frenzy. Reorganization, alignment whatever they call it. If it looks like a reorganization, smells like a reorganization, then it must be so. When high level officials in the administration were asked if they thought these constant reorganizations and changes were disruptive responded yes. They are looking to keep things so disrupted that people with knowledge and experience will go away and Bloomberg and Klein won’t have to deal with them anymore. By keeping up the chaos some principals will beg to be abused even more.
QueensParent

You all are wrong, the real fallacy entrenched in all of this is that somehow “optimizing” or “rightsizing” the central bureaucracy of the school system is going to keep schools from getting their budgets cut. Yet this is precisely what has gone on from decades at the DOE and before that, the old Board of Education. “Cut central” gives life to this idea that there are these massive layers of adminstrative fat that can be shed and if we could only do that, well, the system would save so much money they we’d never have to cut classroom spending. It’s a complete lie. Last year’s DOE handout says that the cost of DOE central operations is $300MM. You could cut the entire thing and you are still going to hack away at schools when you are facing something like a 5% cut in school aid ($500MM). Unfortunately, it seems Chancellor Klein has not bought into this fallacy too, well maybe at least for PR purposes, that if only you could streamline, streamline, streamline, or focus people on these endless reorganizations that don’t really accomplish anything other than shuffling chairs, titles, and roles, then there’d be so much money left over that schools won’t be cut. Such a viewpoint simply ignores the tremendous amount of red tape, regulations, oversight and requirements that come attached to the money flowing to schools. Just think about Leonie’s class size reduction issue — I bet that creates a huge amount of paperwork and monitoring requirements in and of itself. Thus the need for central staff. I don’t know enough about the CFN yet and I will read more, but please, the idea that a few people can do disparate jobs of monitoring and compliance for all the functions related to running a school, that a few people sitting together can replace all of the scope of the former district offices, it doesn’t make sense. They will say that they can do it but I assure you when the auditors and monitors show up and prove that they are not performing all of the tasks they are supposed to, the next thing that will be said is “well, we have to reorgnize again.”
Peter

One of the ironies of the new re-org is that it is looking more like the old district office … this time without geographic boundaries. The ISC centralized functions that had been in the forty or so district offices around the city, not surprisingly the economy of scale idea was counter-balanced by the “anonymous person on a phone or at the end of an email.” Too often a phone call or email response was “mailbox is full.”

The CFNs are mobile and dedicated to a network of 25 or so schools and working with an instructional network leader.

Now, let’s accept the fact that schools are part of a community and place these networks within geographic parameters
CFNs servicing schools in 3-4 boroughs is not an effective use of time.

BTW, although I am critical of much what Klein/Tweed has done the peeling away of layers of bureaucracy due to the use of technology is impressive. Ordering, budget, ATS, HSST, CAP, and on and on … the ability with a few mouse clicks to establish what formerly took a small army …

Unanswered questions: Do the Borough Safety Adminstrators survive? and, if so, how will they function? and, if not, who will assume their work? How about the ISC Attendence Supervisors? same questions as above … guess we will find out as re-org details unfold …
Charlie

Being in the education field for over 14 years, I have seen many changes come about. Changes in math curriculum, regional changes, central staffing changes, funding adjustments and a myriad of others. As I am investigating this CFN idea, it appears that the ISC’s may be on the next list to be either downsized or reorganized. The bottom line is our kids, to get them to learn and prepare them to go into the world with the necessary resources to support themselves and their families. I would rather see changes coming to the ISC’s than see my budget cut once again. Schools are running on bare bones since city, state and NCLB funding have been reduced. I would like to see a CFN that addresses the needs of the teachers as well as assisting administration in the tedious administrative forms and paperwork that have to be completed. What I hope CFN will do is create a direct link between principals and Tweed so that questions can be quickly and accurately answered, help provide professional development for both administration and pedagogical staff and assist us in raising the bar to meet the more stringent requirements that the state is putting in place for formative assessment and graduation rates.
Henry

So much is being exchanged about how it was at DOE long ago and how it probably be in the future, but the following is obvious:

* This is but another reorganization in a series of failed prior restructuring. Decisions on the structure of this complex agency are apparently being made by geniuses who know little about NYC, its citizens and its students. * The statistics used by Klein to support “success” and “achievement” are a sham. The socio-economic dynamics of NYC have not radically changed over the last decade, only the methodology for tabulating various indicators and the data universe. If gimmicky methods are used to raise student grades or to enable completion of missing credits, or if certain negative factors are filtered out, then of course there will be higher graduation rates and reading rates and math rates. If DOE pressures educators to “teach for the test” rather than to “teach to learn”, then Regent scores may improve as well. * The current DOE “administrative” component is neither lower nor cheaper then its was pre-Klein. Calling a function “support” or “instructional” rather than “administration” does not automatically make it a direct student service. Neither does placing an “administrative” function is a school. * Like the Democrats currently foisting an convoluted and unpopular health reform plan upon this nation, DOE is reorganizing into a confusing format that citizens will find hard to criticize. It’s just too complicated. And the parent activists are now largely paid employees of DOE. NYC will have to wait until the incumbant decision makers end their tenure of power. Then the cleanups and fixes will have to begin.

Our Twitter Updates

Despite some tense confrontations between protesters and police, nothing ever got physical and a lieutenant just said there were no arrests. 4 hrs ago
He's been frozen in that stoic position all night MT @lisafleisher: A protester speaks with his middle finger. http://t.co/xLar4NRU 4 hrs ago
Last of the occupy protesters just walked out together, shouting expletives and insults on their way out. #toughcrowd 5 hrs ago
Frank Thomas, DOE spokesman just told me no arrests have been made tonight at PEP despite confrontation between protesters & police earlier. 5 hrs ago
RT @leoniehaimson: It's been shown repeatedly that as one schl closes another overwhelmed w/ high needs kids that small schls won't take 5 hrs ago
More updates...

M	T	W	T	F	S	S
« Jan
		1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29

GothamSchools — daily independent reporting on NYC public schools

March 10, 2009

A DOE plan to personalize bureaucracy is making unions nervous

Tips, questions, feedback?

Follow GothamSchools

Feb. 10: You’re invited!

Recently Posted Jobs

Chalk It Up

Recent Comments

Events Calendar

RSS Feeds

Our Twitter Updates

Archives

Copyright Notice