The New York City Department of Education (DOE) finds itself embroiled in controversy surrounding its selection of “Illustrative Math” as the core curriculum for its “NYC Solves” initiative, a program designed to address declining math proficiency among students. A major competitor, Savvas Learning Company, has formally requested an investigation by City Comptroller Brad Lander, alleging that the DOE bypassed established bidding procedures in favor of Illustrative Math, published by Imagine Learning. This accusation, outlined in a letter from Savvas Senior Vice-President Sean Mulcahy, claims that the DOE awarded the $34 million contract without a competitive bidding process, raising concerns about potential favoritism and a lack of transparency. The absence of any record of the contract in the Comptroller’s office further fuels suspicions surrounding the procurement process.
The “NYC Solves” initiative, launched in June 2023 by Mayor Adams and then-Chancellor David Banks, aimed to combat the alarming statistic that half of students in grades 3-8 were not proficient in math. The program began with a pilot program in 265 high schools using Illustrative Math for algebra instruction. However, the curriculum quickly faced significant pushback from many teachers who criticized its rigid structure, heavily scripted lesson plans, and emphasis on student-led group discovery, which they felt minimized the role of direct instruction. Despite these concerns, and a citywide decline in Algebra 1 Regents exam scores, the DOE expanded the mandatory use of Illustrative Math to nearly all city high schools.
Savvas’s accusations extend beyond the alleged circumvention of bidding rules. The company’s letter also cites emails from an agent of another educational vendor, Curriculum Associates, suggesting that the DOE had already reviewed and accepted their math programs for grades K-8 in May 2023, a full month before the public announcement of “NYC Solves.” This timeline discrepancy, according to Savvas, raises the specter of collusion and pre-determined outcomes, potentially giving certain vendors an unfair advantage. The implication is that some companies had insider knowledge of the DOE’s plans before they were publicly disclosed, potentially influencing the selection process and undermining fair competition.
The DOE vehemently denies these allegations, maintaining that it adhered to all procurement policies and procedures. Their official statement asserts that Savvas was among the companies evaluated following a public “Request for Information” on math curricula. However, this explanation fails to address the core concern raised by Savvas: the lack of a formal competitive bidding process for a contract of such substantial value. The “Request for Information” process is typically used for preliminary information gathering and does not constitute a formal bid solicitation, leaving unanswered questions about the specific criteria used to select Illustrative Math and the justification for bypassing a competitive bidding process.
The controversy surrounding the Illustrative Math contract highlights broader concerns about transparency and accountability in the DOE’s procurement practices. The allegations of pre-determined outcomes and potential favoritism undermine public trust and raise questions about whether the selection process prioritizes the best interests of students or the interests of specific vendors. A thorough and impartial investigation by the Comptroller’s office is crucial to address these concerns and ensure that public funds are allocated fairly and efficiently, ultimately serving the goal of improving math education for all New York City students. The outcome of this investigation will have significant implications for the future of math education in the city and could potentially lead to changes in the DOE’s procurement processes.
The core issues at stake are fairness, transparency, and accountability in the allocation of public resources. The allegations leveled against the DOE, if substantiated, could represent a significant breach of public trust and warrant a reevaluation of the department’s procurement practices. The future of “NYC Solves” and the implementation of Illustrative Math hang in the balance, pending the outcome of the Comptroller’s investigation. The controversy also underscores the importance of rigorous oversight in public contracting to ensure that decisions are made in the best interest of the public and that all vendors have a fair and equal opportunity to compete for contracts. This case serves as a reminder of the need for ongoing scrutiny and transparency in the allocation of public resources, particularly in critical areas like education.
