Investigation demanded over DOE's controversial $34M math curriculum purchase
- Sean Mulcahy from Savvas Learning Company alleges that the DOE bypassed proper procurement processes for the 'Illustrative Math' curriculum.
- Educators have criticized the curriculum for its rigidity, despite the DOE mandating it in most high schools.
- The allegations raise concerns about transparency and fairness in the DOE's decision-making process.
In June 2023, the New York City Department of Education (DOE) announced the launch of the 'NYC Solves' initiative aimed at improving lagging math scores, as only half of students in grades 3-8 were proficient in 2023. This initiative involved the introduction of the 'Illustrative Math' curriculum, which began being piloted in 265 high schools. However, the heavily scripted lesson plan and group-based learning approach has received backlash from many teachers, who found it rigid and unengaging. Despite a citywide decrease in performance on Algebra 1 Regents exams that year, the DOE mandated the curriculum's use in all but six of 420 high schools. Following these developments, Sean Mulcahy, the senior vice-president of Savvas Learning Company, publicly raised questions about the bidding process for the curriculum in a letter to city Comptroller Brad Lander. He claimed that the DOE appeared to have sidestepped the necessary procurement procedures, which typically allow for multiple curriculum vendors to submit proposals. Instead, it seems the DOE selected 'Illustrative Mathematics' without a competitive bidding process. In response to these concerns, the DOE asserted that it complied with all procurement policies, stating it had evaluated Savvas among others that responded to a public 'Request for Information.' Furthermore, Mulcahy cited emails from representatives of Curriculum Associates, indicating that their math programs had been reviewed by the DOE prior to the public announcement of 'NYC Solves,' raising further questions about possible unfairness in the selection process and leading to allegations of potential collusion within the DOE. These controversies highlight ongoing issues within the DOE and the decision-making processes regarding educational vendors, significantly impacting the quality and effectiveness of educational tools provided to students in New York City.