Summarize this content to 2000 words in 6 paragraphs
A major vendor has asked city Comptroller Brad Lander to investigate whether the Department of Education’s purchase of the controversial “Illustrative Math” curriculum unfairly sidestepped the bidding rules.
“It appears that DOE did not follow any procurement process before selecting Illustrative Mathematics” for its $34 million “NYC Solves” initiative, writes Sean Mulcahy, senior vice-president of New Jersey-based Savvas Learning Company in a Nov. 26 letter obtained by The Post.
“While multiple curricula companies would normally have had the opportunity to submit proposals, it appears the DOE selected Illustrative Mathematics with no competing bids or procurement process,” says the competitor’s letter, first reported by Politico.
Lander declined to comment, but officials told The Post his office has no record of any current or prospective contracts for Illustrative Math, which is published by Imagine Learning.
Mayor Adams and then-Chancellor David Banks announced the launch of NYC Solves in June to address lagging math scores, with half of students in grades 3-8 not proficient in 2023.
The initiative began with 265 high schools piloting Illustrative Math for algebra, but many teachers hated the tightly scripted lesson plans, rigid schedule, and requirement that students work in groups to “discover” and solve math problems with little teacher input.
Despite a citywide decline on the Algebra 1 Regents exams this year, the DOE mandated the use of Illustrative Math in all but six of 420 high schools.
In a statement Saturday, the DOE said it “has complied with all procurement policies and procedures,” and that it evaluated Savvas among companies that responded to a public “Request for Information” on math curricula.
Mulcahy’s letter also quotes emails from an agent of vendor Curriculum Associates, which claim the DOE had reviewed and accepted its math programs for use in grades K to 8. The emails are dated in May, a month before NYC Solves was introduced to the public.
The claims “raise significant questions about potential collusion, unfairness, favoritism, impropriety, or improper influence within the DOE procurement process,” Mulcahy wrote.
“At the very least, they create the appearance of a conflict of interest and suggest that some bidders knew the DOE’s plans before any public announcement.”
A Curriculum Associates rep could not immediately be reached.
