We are not against equity, competition, provider diversity, or change. We are against using those words as substitutes for evidence. Show us what became better for children — school by school.
“Awards considered scores, principal rankings, and provider diversity.”
Context: In Council testimony, DYCD said provider diversity was one of the factors shaping awards, and emphasized that 52 new providers entered the portfolio. The same hearing record indicates a single organization received more than 80 sites — roughly 10% of all awards — while smaller, locally rooted providers with years of school relationships were shut out.
Our response: Provider diversity should expand strong, locally rooted ecosystems — not dismantle functioning ones to rebalance a vendor list. Diversity of logos is not diversity of opportunity.
- How was “provider diversity” defined?
- Was it scored, weighted, or used as a tie-breaker?
- How much weight did it carry against principal preference and documented performance?
- Why could more than 80 awards still go to a single organization under a diversity rationale?
- Did small, locally rooted providers gain or lose overall?
- What became materially better for children at every changed school?
“Equitable investment drove where seats and resources should go.”
Context: DYCD described its equitable-investment methodology as driven largely by poverty (roughly 70%), with additional weight for students with disabilities, students in temporary housing, and neighborhoods with high gun violence.
Our response: That can explain where seats and dollars should be directed. It does not by itself explain why an embedded, school-chosen provider had to be removed from a specific school. Investing in high-need communities and removing trusted providers are two different decisions.
- Which schools gained seats or services as a direct result of the equitable-investment formula?
- Did any school lose seats or programming hours under this same formula?
- How is the formula reconciled with principal preference at the school level?
“Parents were not taken into consideration” — but will be consulted later.
Context: DYCD acknowledged in Council testimony that parents were not included in actual provider selection. The agency said parents would instead be asked about programming after the new provider was already chosen.
Our response: Asking parents what they want after the provider is selected is transition management, not shared decision-making. The people closest to the children had no voice in the award itself.
- When in the next procurement cycle will families and PTAs be included before selection?
- What is the documented process for school-community input on awards — not just on programming?
“I know how resilient young people are and how adaptable they are to change.”
Context: This was Commissioner Escamilla-Davies's response to a direct Council question about what families would do if new providers failed to offer sports, arts, or academic enrichment that previous providers had offered.
Our response: Resilience is what people develop when systems fail them. It is not a transition plan, a staffing plan, a disability-access plan, or a guarantee that lost programs will return. Invoking it shifts the cost of DYCD's decisions onto children, families, schools, and workers — including autistic students and others who depend on predictable routines.
- How long must children struggle before DYCD intervenes?
- What metrics will determine whether a transition failed?
- Who monitors exclusions, attendance drops, staff turnover, and lost programming?
- What is the timeline for corrective action?
- What remedy exists after children have already been destabilized?
“We will act later if services do not work.”
Context: DYCD has framed monitoring and post-award adjustment as the safeguard if a new provider underperforms.
Our response: Children are not the appropriate test case for an unproven transition. After-the-fact correction does not restore a lost year of mentorship, sports, arts, or IEP supports.
- What specific thresholds (attendance, complaints, IEP service gaps) trigger DYCD action?
- What corrective tools does DYCD have short of a full re-procurement?
- Who reviews and publishes mid-contract performance data?
DYCD awarded first and planned later. Families are asking the City to reverse that order.
- Select the provider.
- Ask parents what programming they want.
- Ask the incoming provider to recreate valued services.
- Expect children to adapt during the transition.
- Intervene later if it fails.
- Identify the community's needs.
- Evaluate current and incoming providers against those needs.
- Include parents and principals before selection.
- Require a complete transition and disability plan.
- Award only after proving readiness.
- Monitor from day one.