Harvard Graduate School of Education

Children First in New York CityUrban Education Reform in New York City: Challenges, Policies and Implementation

Jason Wong, Jonathan Sproul, Sarah Kasok5/4/2008

The New York City Department of Education (NYCDOE) serves over 1.1 million students and

oversees more than 1,400 schools. 33% of students are black, 39% are Latino, 14% are White, and 13%

are Asian. In 2002, Mayor Bloomberg and Chancellor Klein launched the Children First Initiative. Phase

One of Children First began with mayoral takeover and restructuring of the NYC public school system.

Children First rapidly evolved throughout NYC Public Schools and its successes have attracted national

attention; for the third year in a row the NYC Public Schools have been a finalist for the Broad Award

given to the most successful urban school district in America. This paper documents the historical and

political context of Children First, it provides an in-depth description of the Children First, and it makes

informed recommendations about improving the district-wide reform efforts.

NYC public schools have been characterized by a nearly perpetual struggle between

decentralization and centralization since the 19th Century, almost entirely dependent on group power

struggles and /or public response to corruption. In around the 1990’s, a series of stinging reports

indicated that there was still widespread mismanagement and corruption inherent in the NYC school

district. Historically, the state and city government of New York had not played a very active role in the

daily operations of the NYC public schools. However, in 2002, the New York State Legislature approved

mayoral takeover of the NYC public school system. In 2009, the New York State Legislature will have to

reauthorize the NYC Mayor’s ability to control the NYC public school district.

The need for mayoral takeover of the NYC public schools stemmed from chronically

underperforming student academic achievement levels, endemic corruption, mismanagement, and lack

of any coherent district-wide coordination. Upon taking mayoral control of the NYC, Mayor Bloomberg

appointed Joe Klein as Chancellor of NYC public schools and they teamed up to implement Children

First. Mayor Bloomberg and Chancellor Klein implemented Children First in two phases. The first phase

of Children First included the restructuring of the NYC public schools in order to stabilize and coordinate

a disorganized system of schools. The 40 citywide district offices were consolidated into 10 Instructional

Divisions (http://schools.nyc.gov). The NYC Public School System was also consolidated into the newly

created NYCDOE and the NYCDOE took responsibility for the centralized oversight of the Children First

reform.

After creating centralization and stability of the NYC public school system, Chancellor Klein

rolled out Phase Two of Children First. Phase Two of Children First operates with the three core

principles of empowerment, leadership and accountability. The principle of empowerment recognizes

that people closest to the students should be empowered to make school level educational decisions,

such as budget, curriculum and professional development. The principle of leadership recognizes that

the success of empowering schools hinges upon the ability of the school leaders. Finally, the principle of

accountability recognizes that schools and school leaders need to be held accountable for their

performance and the NYCDOE is reciprocally accountable for providing schools with the tools and

resources to achieve success.

Children First empowers principals to make decisions that will allow them to meet the needs of

their students. Principals are mainly empowered to make budgetary, professional development,

assessment and instructional support decisions. Each principal is required to join a learning support

organization. Learning support organizations provides schools with three key support packages:

accountability and instructional support, special-needs support and youth development support.

Accountability and instructional supports consists of providing school leaders with the tools that

allow capacity building within the school community; these tools include utilization of the accountability

tools, implementation of best practices and targeted partnerships. Special needs supports provide

school leaders with the professional development to implement differentiated instruction for students

with special needs. Finally, youth development support provides best practices and assistance with

implementation of youth development programs that improve the behavior, culture, achievement and

overall school climate.

Each learning support organizations specializes in an area and varies in cost for its services. For

instance, Kathleen Cashin prior superintendent of Region 5, heads the LSO entitled Knowledge Network

Support Organization for $42, 438 per school. This LSO specializes in supporting a “content rich”

curriculum in science, literature, the arts, and history. Region 3’s Judith Chin’s is in charge of the

Integrated Curriculum and Instruction LSO which focuses on implementing an effective multidisciplinary

curriculum and charges $47,500 for its services (Herszenhorn, 2007).

Principals are required to decide which instructional support structure best meet the needs of

their school by joining their school into one of three learning support organizations: Community

Learning Support Organization (LSO), Empowerment Learning Organizations (ELO) or Partnership

Support Organization (PSO). The fact that principals can choose their support choice does empower

principals in New York in a new and exciting way.

The mission of the LSO is “to partner with and support schools as they strive to prepare students

to achieve their personal best, fulfill their responsibility to the community and, positively influence the

course of events in the 21st century” (LSO Fact Sheet, 2008). The LSO was founded on the belief that

schools need to become communities and develop meaningful relationships within the school

community, families and the surrounding community. The LSO’s are said to be the most popular choice

by Chancellor Klein and others because veterans of NYC public schools run the LSO’s.

In 2004, the ELO was piloted in 48 schools that made up the “Autonomy Zone” and, since then,

the ELOs has grown to include over 500 schools. ELO give schools customized support that align with

the core belief that decisions about education students should be made by the principal and school

community because they are the closest to students. These ELOs support the empowered schools to

make key school-based decisions, such as curriculum, budget, professional development and

assessment methods.

PSOs are support organizations operated by partners outside of the DOE, such as intermediaries,

colleges, and universities. The PSOs demonstrated records of supporting communities and schools in a

variety of capacities. The PSO process consisted of the DOE releasing a Request for Proposals (RFP) to

external organizations. These proposals required the outside partners to outline how there

organizations would support schools and, based upon the merit of the proposal, the DOE selected the

PSOs. In 2007- 2008, the partnership support organizations serving New York City public schools were

Academy for Educational Development, Center for Educational Innovation-Public Education Association

(CEI-PEA), City University of New York (CUNY), Fordham University, New Visions for Public Schools,

Replications, Inc.

Staffing of schools is another significant way principals are empowered by Children First. In 2005

the New York City Department of Education negotiated a contract with the Untied Federation of

Teachers that allowed for a staffing rule of “mutual consent.” This means that teachers and principals

now have to both agree on a teacher’s placement at a school. This new rule banished traditional rules of

teacher placement such as when seniority teachers could ‘bump’ another teacher. Also, this change in

the contract allows principals to have more control over their school site and empower principals to

make staffing decisions (The New Teacher Project, 2008). This progressive union negotiation proves that

the district leadership and the union leadership are working together to compromise on managerial

issues by making contractual agreements that align with the empowerment core of the Children First

mission.

However, there are some instances where the amount of principals’ empowerment in NYC

public schools is questionable. Children First “empowers” principals to provide extended programming

and summer school, services to English Language Learners, and programming for new teacher

mentoring (http://schools.nyc.gov/default.aspx). However, the question is whether or not this is

empowerment or simply giving large amounts of responsibility to principals without providing

structured support. For instance, teaching mentoring could fall to the wayside if new teacher mentoring

is not a priority on the principals’ agenda and if principals don’t have the capacity to develop the

mentoring program. Secondly, all of these decisions about offering programming and changing the

schedule must be consistent with the union contract and it is unclear if the union contracts constrains or

empowers these responsibilities.

Additionally, principals are required to use a core English Language Arts, Math, Science, and

Social Studies Curriculum unless they petition otherwise (http://schools.nyc.gov/default.aspx). So,

principals are also bound to a certain curriculum unless they are willing to take on a work heavy

petitioning process. In all, Children First must be careful to balance truly empowering principals to make

choices to meet the needs of their students with giving them too much responsibility that it is nearly

impossible for one person to sustain the role. Although shared leadership can alleviate some

responsibility, it remains to be seen if Children’s First has found the right balance.

This plan’s success is contingent upon hiring excellent school leaders. The New York City

Leadership Academy’s Aspiring Principals Program (APP) recruits, trains and supports NYC school

principals. The APP is a 14-month programs that prepares future school principals for placement into the

city’s highest needs and hardest to staff schools. APP graduates commit to serving in the DOE for at least

five years. The Summer Intensive uses problem and action based learning curriculum that mimics a real-

life school principal experience. During the school-based residency, each APP participant is matched

with a mentor principal and placed into a year long school-based residency. In the final stage, Summer

Planning, the future school principal prepares for the transition into their upcoming principal placement.

Now, over 13% of NYC schools are lead by APP principals, 21% have opened new small schools and 90%

of APP graduates continue to serve in school leadership positions

(http://www.nycleadershipacademy.org/).

Chancellor Klein and Mayor Bloomberg have designed a system based on the management

capabilities of principals, so a large question remains if they can find and keep top-notch principals in the

district. Secondly, school’s success is hugely dependent on the capacity and effectiveness of the support

organizations. If these support organizations are indeed effective, then the differentiated support model

may indeed work. However, if the support organizations do not give adequate support, then little will

ultimately change in the day-to-day operations of teaching and learning. Lastly, there are always budget

concerns. Mayor Bloomberg has increased spending on New York City Schools 72% since 2002 (Medina,

2008). In January of this year, schools were forced to cut 1.75% from their school budget and more cuts

seem to be on the horizon. Bloomberg and Klein will have to find ways to sustain the momentum of

school reform in New York amidst a possible economic downturn.

Accountability is a core principal of Children First and the district’s Office of Accountability and

Assessment have implemented an advanced qualitative and quantitative assessment system for schools.

Quantitatively, schools take a variety of periodic assessments for formative assessments and students

take the state Regents as a summative assessment. Qualitatively, schools use quality reviews and

surveys as a measurement tool. The combination of the school’s qualitative and quantitative

assessments are used to produce a school report card, which gives each school a A, B, C, D or F letter

grade to communicate the schools’ performance.

Elementary and middle school students take annual State Regents and high school students take

the Regents in 10th grade. The Regents are summative assessments that determine if the students and

schools are making sufficient progress in ELA, math, social students and science. In high school, 10th

grade students are required to pass five Regents exams in order to graduate and these Regents

determine whether they’re achieving State standards in English Language Arts, mathematics, social

studies, and science.

In addition to these summative assessment tools, all students take English Language Arts (ELA)

and math formative, “Periodic Assessments”. These periodic assessments are administered throughout

the school year to provide a growth model assessments measure for individual student progress. The

results of the Regents and periodic assessments are used to develop data driven decisions to inform

whole school instructional practices and develop personalized instruction for students.

In SY 2007-2008, the Office of Accountability implemented four additional school assessments

tools: Progress Reports, Surveys, Quality Reports and Achievement Reporting and Innovation System

(ARIS). Progress Reports use a variety of student data, such as student progress and overall school data,

such as safety and engagement, in order to grade each school with an A, B, C, D, or F. Surveys ask

students, parents and teachers to provide qualitative evaluations and assessments of the school.

Quality reviews are 2-3 day school visits by a team of educators that observe classrooms, meet with

school community and rate the schools’ ability of improving student learning. Finally, the ARIS is a data

management tool that allows parents and educator to access student data and other important

information on student learning.

Key indicators suggest that Children First is a successful urban reform initiative. First, fewer

resources are being wasted on bureaucratic mismanagement and corruption, and more resources are

being made available to the classroom. Compared to the school district’s prior history of bureaucratic

and political corruption, the NYC Department of Education has stabilized the school district and laid the

foundation for system-wide reform. Graduation rates have been increasing for the past four years,

across all ethnicities. Furthermore, more students are graduating with more advanced degrees, also

known as Regents Diplomas. In terms of test scores, math scores have seen the most significant

improvement. English test score improvements among those who are English language proficient have

also notably increased.

From the New York case, there has been witnessed success with the Mayor and Chancellor

taking control of the situation, stabilizing the school district politically and financially as a foundation for

change. Other strengths of these changes include strong political leaders that pull levers of power to

maneuver concessions from teacher unions and various other interest groups to steamroll change, there

have been more resources directed into the classroom, learning organizations provide differentiated

support which schools can choose from, and schools are empowered to make responsive decisions to

meet their students’ needs.

However, a major question remains, what will happen when Bloomberg and Klein leave? It is

unclear whether or not Children First reforms are sufficient enough to outlast Bloomberg and Klein,

especially considering Bloomberg’s potential larger political ambitions. Other weaknesses include the

fact that current reform heavily relies on administrative leadership, it relies on relatively inexperienced

learning organizations to provide support to schools, and the reform’s direct impact on the instructional

core is questionable. Furthermore, it is unclear if the reform’s increased funding is financially

sustainable. Mayor Bloomberg has increased funding in for the NYC public schools by 4.3 billion dollars,

but this continued increase in funding might not be possible, especially during economic downturn.

Although there have been significant improvements with students’ academic performance and

graduation rates in NYC, when accounting for English Language Learners (ELL), English test score

improvements remain more ambiguous. Since ELL’s have a rapidly growing population, it is

recommended that further reform should specifically target this ELL subgroup. The Office of

Accountability should add additional ELL performance measures to the schools’ progress report card

because that will increase the school level focus on this subgroup. In turn, the districts’ learning support

organizations will need to provide school leaders with the resources and best practices that will best

meet the needs of the ELL population.

Since 2002, there has been significant rapid reform that has completely changed the way in

which the NYC public schools conducts its business. It is important to sustain this current Children First

reform initiative. Constant turnover of school leaders creates layers and layers of reform upon reform,

but Children First eliminated a majority of these layers by structurally reforming NYC public schools.

Now, NYC must sustain Children First in order to build upon its success. In order to sustain this reform,

future political leadership must adopt and take ownership of this reform strategy and continue to

allocate sufficient funding and resources for schools, continue to develop school leaders and refine best

practices at the individual school level and throughout learning support organizations.

Although political leadership of the Mayor and the Chancellor will inevitably turnover, the

schools and their communities will remain intact. Therefore, it is necessary to engage the families and

communities in Children First. Children First was implemented as a top-down initiative that completely

restructured the New York City public and the process failed to include schools, families and

communities in the initial stages of the reform. Therefore, in order to sustain Children First by gaining

community buy-in, Children First must make a targeted effort toward engaging families and

communities in schools. Changing the names of schools is one recommendation that can provide a

catalyst for family and community engagement. Currently, schools are named with letters and numbers,

such as PS-132. We believe that the community can come together to name each school based upon an

influential community member. This activity will create a bridge that will allow families and

communities to become engaged and take ownership of the schools.

Children First fundamentally changed the way the NYC school system operates and has

improved student learning and graduation rates for its 1.1 million students. With greater attention to

ELL’s, increased community involvement, and attention to sustaining and developing school leaders,

Children First will continue to serve as a national model for urban district reform. As a result, NYCDOE

will no longer be a finalist for the Broad Award, but NYCDOE will be a well deserving recipient of this

prestigious distinction.

References:

Children First: A Principals Guide to School Support Organizations (February 2008). NYCDOE

Herszenhorn, David (2007, April 17). Klein Specifies Restructuring of City Schools. The New York Times.

Medina, Jennifer (2008, March 20). Thousands Protest Budget Cuts Aimed at City Schools. The New York

Times.

The New Teacher Project. (2008). Mutual Benefits: New York’s Shift to Mutual Consent in Teacher Hiring.

Web Resources:

http://www.tntp.org/publications/Mutual_Benefits.html

http://schools.nyc.gov/default.asp

http://www.nycleadershipacademy.org/