Audit Report on the Performance of Department of Education’s Children First Network 406

The New York City Department of Education (DOE) supports its schools through the Children First Networks (CFNs), which provide both instructional and operational support to the schools. Specifically, the CFNs provide professional development for principals and teachers; strategic intervention and planning for struggling schools; and targeted support for students with disabilities, English Language Learners, and under-represented student groups. In addition, CFNs assist schools with administrative tasks such as hiring teachers, carrying out daily operations, using data and technology, and fostering partnerships with community-based organizations and cultural institutions.

DOE evaluates network performance on an annual basis by using an evaluating structure that consists of four components: Progress Report, Quality Review, Qualitative Network Evaluation, and Principal Satisfaction Survey. The objective of this audit was to determine whether CFN 406 provides instructional and operational support to its schools in accordance with DOE policies and procedures.

Audit Finding and Conclusion

CFN 406 provided instructional and operational support to its schools in accordance with DOE policies and procedures. The CFN provided assistance to schools pertaining to educational planning, curriculum mapping , student work analysis, and quality review. In addition, CFN 406 offered professional development training to school personnel and provided operational support in a timely manner in areas such as attendance, suspension, health and safety compliance, and transportation services. Satisfaction with the services provided by CFN 406 was confirmed by the four school principals who we interviewed.

However, it is difficult to determine whether that support increased the efficiency of the schools’ day-to-day operations as was anticipated by some of DOE’s expectations for the CFNs. Specifically, we are concerned with DOE’s current evaluation structure and the way each component is being used to measure network performance. For two of these components, the Progress Report and the Quality Review, a network’s contribution to the scores allotted to the schools cannot be directly ascertained. For another component, the Qualitative Network Evaluation, the evaluation is based primarily on activities planned by a network rather than the outcome or effectiveness of those activities. The remaining component, the Principal Satisfaction Survey, appears to be the best suited of the four to provide feedback on the work performed by a network. However, DOE is not sufficiently utilizing this tool.

Audit Recommendations

To address these issues, we made three recommendations. DOE should:

• Develop quantifiable criteria and standards that would allow it to determine whether there is a correlation between the schools’ progress or lack thereof and the performance of the CFN.
• Encourage the principals to fill out the entire Principal Satisfaction Survey and incorporate a comments section within the survey.
• Solicit feedback from other school officials who work with the CFNs, such as assistant principals and teachers.

Agency Response

DOE officials agreed to implement two of the three recommendations in the report and disagreed with our recommendation to develop quantifiable criteria and standards, asserting that DOE already holds CFNs accountable for school performance through its annual Progress Reports and Quality Reviews. However, as discussed in the report, with its current evaluation structure, DOE cannot sufficiently correlate a school’s progress to the performance of the CFN. As such, we continue to believe that DOE should develop criteria and standards that would allow it to make that correlation in its evaluation of CFN performance.