Who really runs the NYC public schools?

CB, a veteran NYCATR contributor, has raised a disturbing question: 

Who really runs the New York City public schools?

Here is some information I recently learned from a school secretary at one of the many schools where I’ve been placed. I would appreciate feedback from anyone who can confirm or refute the veracity of this information, or who can answer any of the questions listed at the end of this entry. 

A few years ago, Learning Support Organizations, or Networks, were engaged or created to “integrate operational and instructional support for schools,” or, rather, to take over some of the functions of the districts. Despite the fact that the DOE School Support web page refers to Networks in the plural, the only one listed on that page is Children First Network. (It seems to me that there originally were others; what happened to them?) 

This secretary told me that for its first four years, CFN staff consisted of former district staff personnel, people who were knowledgeable about school operations and therefore helpful to school administrators and teachers. This staff was originally to have been kept for only three years, but they were kept on for another year. By the fifth year, CFN had all new people on its staff, and, according to this secretary, these folks had difficulty carrying out their functions because of lack of experience with the school system. The year after that, things became “so bad” that CFN staff members would not even answer their telephones. Now, in the seventh year, they still “don’t know what they are doing.” 

This appears to explain “Life in Limbo’s” interview experience with a know-nothing CFN “Human Resources Director of Talent.” 

The bottom line, in my opinion, is that the Networks are really part of the mayor’s not-so-secret plan to privatize the schools. The school secretary theorizes that Mr. Bloomberg’s model for the city school system is the University of Phoenix, whose only campus is a virtual one. 

Most or all of us remember when Regions were installed to oversee (or replace?) the Districts, then scrapped in three years’ time. I don’t think the CFN is going to go away so quickly. 

Here are some questions I’d like to see answered: 

*Is there information about CFN on any of the alternative teacher blogs? 

*What is the relationship between the DOE administration and the CFN? 

*Who hires CFN staff? What are their supposed qualifications? 

*What powers does CFN hold? 

*What is its relationship to the school districts? 

*What is its relationship to school principals? 

*How much does CFN cost the DOE, and what costs were eliminated with its creation? 

*Are there any other Learning Support Organizations? 

*What else should we know?

Picture credits:

     

          http://childrenfirstnetwork.com/images/team.png

          

          http://www.localcollegeexplorer.com/Online_Degree/images/University_of_Phoenix.jpg

          

First Visit from a Field Supervisor

An ATR teacher named CB sent us this report about her first visit from  a Field Supervisor.  For those who haven't been consistent in their reading of NYCATR, Field Supervisors are a new-fangled breed of DOE administrators who will be evaluating the work of ATR teachers in selected areas of Brooklyn.  

An NFL field supervisor

I had the first (unannounced) visit on December 8th from my new Field Supervisor (I'm in District 13 at the elementary school level). I asked her whether she was a teacher. She said she had been a teacher, coach, and principal, and held one or two other job titles within DOE. She had left a principal's post to take a position at Tweed. When that position was eliminated, there were no principal positions open, due to school closings. The DOE offered her this Field Supervisor thing, so she took it. She mentioned, I think, three districts that she is assigned to. Lots of traveling around.

So, as you can see, these folks are in a similar boat to ours, though they are more highly paid. By the view, this was not an evaluation, just an observation. 

Interestingly, both in person and in an e-mail, the supervisor told me that her purpose is to support me and help me find a permanent placement (and of course to do the same for the others to whom she is assigned).

While the field supervisor was in the classroom, a broken closet door, which I'd reported to a custodian, fell and hit a child in the head. Also in that room was a broken SmartBoard (and no working one), a broken drawer in the teacher's desk, and windows that would not open (except for one). Teachers and students have such wonderful working environments. Aren't we glad we're following former Chancellor Klein's suggestion that the schools be run like a business?

Photo credit: http://www.mysanantonio.com/mediaManager/?controllerName=image&action=get&id=1156289&width=628&height=471

The DOE sets new trends in Special Education

This report was submitted a few days ago by a teacher who would like to be known as CB.  Our apologies to CB, and our readers, for the delay in posting.

This morning I arrived at my new elementary-school-of-the-week and was assigned to a small CTT class as the General Ed partner of a very nice Special Education teacher. I was told that I would remain at that assignment until Friday. 

The General Ed teacher in that classroom for the first month, it turns out, was also a member of the ATR, so he has now been placed elsewhere. Presumably, a new person will be in this position each week. This is certainly not a good situation for the Special Ed teacher. But it is much worse for the students. IN WHAT WAY IS IT GOOD, OR JUSTIFIABLE, FOR STUDENTS, ESPECIALLY NEEDY ONES, TO HAVE A NEW TEACHER EACH WEEK?

Yes, they have the stability provided by the appointed Special Education teacher. But they need assurance, familiarity, and safety, not the experience of constantly having to adapt to new primary adults in their lives.